Welcome to the "Light Zone."
Indian Government Marginalizes UN IPCC
- Thread starter T'Girl
- Start date
If you have to ask, then why bother answering you?
It spreads like regular Zone, but has no bad cholesterol.
Actually, people are saying it's because of El Nino...which is accurate.
No, but you're consistently on "climate should be simple and anything complicated is wrong". Just because it's too much for you to want to understand doesn't mean the rest of us have to be constratined by such a reductionist view of reality.
I mean, c'mon dude... you think the Alps should have the exact same climate as the eastern seaboard. If you expect the entire world to have the exact same climate and to be affected in the exact same way at the exact same time, then the facts clearly aren't on your radar.
Between axial tilt, planetary rotation, orbiting the sun and differences in lattitude how the hell can anythink the Alps should have the same climate as another part of the fucking planet?
Um, no. The doctor who forwarded it didn't leave the AMA, he took a leave of absence for a year as a director of the AMA. Also, the thread was not called "Why racists won't admit they are racist," unless the Mods changed the thread title after I was gone. It was "Are claims of racism being used to silence Obama's critics."
I also brought it up as a point of discussion, which I explained in great detail to another mod. Once someone had jumped on the image it would've raised lots of questions. First off, the image was of a Polynesian. How can it be racist to depict Obama as a Polynesian? But a doctor got in trouble for it. But he was making a valid point with it. But if we called the image a "Shaman", "Holy Man", or "Medicine Man" it wouldn't be derogatory, and would in fact show Obama as a wise healer. So the question becomes not whether the image is racist, but whether our own attitudes toward it are racist. A photoshop of Obama as a Cherokee medicine man would, strangely enough, be an image supporting his health care plans. Why is that?
The mod I discussed this with admitted that the image wasn't racist and that I posted it to spark a discussion and that it was on topic. He said I was permabanned anyway because of the way I post.
So it was hilariously appropriate. Are false claims of racism being used to silence Obama's critics? Well, YES!
Anyway, back to the topic at hand.
Here is a research study from Columbia University on how global warming will affect North American snow cover.
Global warming = less snow cover.
Posting in Misc = NOT talking about TNZ.
You misunderstand. Climate is complicated as can be. The ones with the simplistic view are the warmists who expect temperature to be a function of CO2 levels. A recent study found no correlation at all between CO2 and temperature. Either the effect is completely swamped by negative feedbacks or it doesn't exist at all.
As you tried to directly compare the local climates in the Alps and the eastern seaboard as if all areas of the Earth should respond in exactly the same way at exactly the same time, you accusing other people of having an overly simplistic view isn't gonna fly, sorry.
If you'd like to admit the flaw in your reasoning then maybe this conversation can go forward... but until you do, you've got about zero credibility to talk about the actual science. A state that many of the people with politically motivated opposition to the realities of climate change share.
Sorry, but there isn't a flaw in the ski slope argument. It wasn't just ski slopes in the alps, it was ski slopes throughout the United States, Europe, South America, and Asia. Basically, everywhere people ski. I just cited that as one example.
Here are some more:
link
So North American ski operators were just as worried about a lack of snow as their counterparts in the Alps. Democrats were having them give testimony to Congress about how global warming was destroying their industry.
This situation continued, and the global warming doomsayers had them all believing that their future was in doubt, as this October 2009 article mentions.
Spiegel link
And then came the snow - just like the Eastern seaboard of the US. Now the ski reports say stuff like this
link
UK Telegraph link
The snow has returned with a vengeance, not just in the US or the Alps, but across almost the entire Northern Hemisphere, at least every place the Olympic games aren't being held.
China, Korea, Tibet, and other places have also been buried in the deepest snow they've had in decades.
Here are some more:
link
So North American ski operators were just as worried about a lack of snow as their counterparts in the Alps. Democrats were having them give testimony to Congress about how global warming was destroying their industry.
This situation continued, and the global warming doomsayers had them all believing that their future was in doubt, as this October 2009 article mentions.
Spiegel link
And then came the snow - just like the Eastern seaboard of the US. Now the ski reports say stuff like this
link
UK Telegraph link
The snow has returned with a vengeance, not just in the US or the Alps, but across almost the entire Northern Hemisphere, at least every place the Olympic games aren't being held.
China, Korea, Tibet, and other places have also been buried in the deepest snow they've had in decades.
Which isn't normal. I can't see the logical reason why you're using this as evidence as nothing is wrong.
IF he studied the reason why the U.S is getting a shit load more snow he'd have a better understanding.
All that snow that's recently been dumped in Washington etc would of been dumped over Ontario except for one thing.
It's a low preasure system and much of Ontario recently has been under a high preasure system that's forced it South.
We've had had a fraction of the snow that would normally fall in the Kawarthas for example (what they are forecasting for early next month will be the first decent snowfall in two months).- it's all fallen south of the border.
Well, here's the underlying problem with the way some of the scientists are behaving.
The heavy snow could be meaningless. Some years you get tons, some years you get very little. It's been that way pretty much forever, ice ages excepted.
The science is quite clear and quite detailed that global warming should cause, overall, less snowfall and less snow extent. That's confirmed from many different lines of inquiry, such as the panic over retreating glaciers, the ski industry worries, the published results of climate studies such as the one I linked somewhere above.
Absolutely nothing in the science says global warming should cause more snow except the idea of shutting down the Atlantic saline circulation, which would take about a thousand years, based on the estimates that eventually led to "The Day After Tomorrow".
So from a scientific standpoint, they could've said, "Well, this is a bit unexpected but not at all outside the usual range of year to year variation." That would've been honest.
But they didn't do that. Reeling from Climategate and faced with reporters asking about all the snow, a couple of the high priests of AGW claimed that the increased snow was caused by global warming. That's a bald faced lie, and they know it.
It was their propensity to say things in flat contradiction to the science, whenever it suited their immediate political purposes, that caused Chris Landsea (the world's leading hurricane expert) to resign from the IPCC. All the science said that global warming wouldn't cause an increase in the intensity or frequency of hurricanes, yet some IPCC chair held a press conference after a hurricane warning everyone that it was caused by global warming.
If they were open to the scientific process they wouldn't conspire to keep skeptics from getting a hold of their data. Science is about open access to data and methods for skeptics. They wouldn't conspire to completely derail the peer-review process, turning into pal review. They wouldn't conspire to control the editorial boards of scientific journals. They wouldn't destroy data that was crucial to their case (Phil Jones now claims that he lost the data behind the hockey stick graph). They wouldn't misrepresent the science for political grandstanding (as they did with hurricanes, Himalayan glaciers, Brazilian rainforest drought, African starvation, and snowfall). This is not how scientists are supposed to behave.
The heavy snow could be meaningless. Some years you get tons, some years you get very little. It's been that way pretty much forever, ice ages excepted.
The science is quite clear and quite detailed that global warming should cause, overall, less snowfall and less snow extent. That's confirmed from many different lines of inquiry, such as the panic over retreating glaciers, the ski industry worries, the published results of climate studies such as the one I linked somewhere above.
Absolutely nothing in the science says global warming should cause more snow except the idea of shutting down the Atlantic saline circulation, which would take about a thousand years, based on the estimates that eventually led to "The Day After Tomorrow".
So from a scientific standpoint, they could've said, "Well, this is a bit unexpected but not at all outside the usual range of year to year variation." That would've been honest.
But they didn't do that. Reeling from Climategate and faced with reporters asking about all the snow, a couple of the high priests of AGW claimed that the increased snow was caused by global warming. That's a bald faced lie, and they know it.
It was their propensity to say things in flat contradiction to the science, whenever it suited their immediate political purposes, that caused Chris Landsea (the world's leading hurricane expert) to resign from the IPCC. All the science said that global warming wouldn't cause an increase in the intensity or frequency of hurricanes, yet some IPCC chair held a press conference after a hurricane warning everyone that it was caused by global warming.
If they were open to the scientific process they wouldn't conspire to keep skeptics from getting a hold of their data. Science is about open access to data and methods for skeptics. They wouldn't conspire to completely derail the peer-review process, turning into pal review. They wouldn't conspire to control the editorial boards of scientific journals. They wouldn't destroy data that was crucial to their case (Phil Jones now claims that he lost the data behind the hockey stick graph). They wouldn't misrepresent the science for political grandstanding (as they did with hurricanes, Himalayan glaciers, Brazilian rainforest drought, African starvation, and snowfall). This is not how scientists are supposed to behave.
And that explains all the simultaneous record snowfalls in Europe and Asia exactly how?
And this belays the underlying problem with your reasoning... you're talking about how scientists are behaving and not about the actual science. Which is, as I've pointed out many times now, the consistent thread with people who are politically opposed to the facts. Instead of addressing the science, they mudsling the people.
This, on the other hand, is very much untrue. You're essentially saying exactly what you said before... that the climate must be simple for you to believe any science on the subject. That it's apparently inconceivable to you that over time local climate will be affected in different ways as the complicated tapestry that makes up the worlds climate is altered. Once again, this overly simplistic view may constrain your own understanding of the issue, but fortunately the scientific community is not hindered by this shortcoming.
Strictly speaking, this is not what science is about. At all. Open access to raw data isn't a requirement for anything, other then to satiate the faux-experts who wouldn't understand it anyway. You know, like people who think that an increase in temperature over time can only have a single affect on the world.
Very well said. I have a book from 1995-1996 that said if all the ice on the Earth melted oceans would rise 100 feet. That number is now down to 18-26 feet.
My favorite is a program saying global warming is bad because the water will rise up this cliff 25 feet... to a level where there was water 100,000 years ago. The guy was so dumb he didn't see he just proved that the oceans rise and fall and the most humans can do is speed it up.
And yes Al Gore is an asshole, don't you remember he invented the internet and the space shuttle and i think pants.
How they're behaving goes to the heart of the quality of the science they've produced. As their e-mails revealed, they were just making shit up. For example, their whole argument that it's currently warmer than it was during the Medieval Warm Period boiled down to a cherry picked set of tree rings from Yamal. Lots of tree rings data sets were available from there, and they just happened to pick the only combination that would show what they wanted.
They claimed this tree ring data was very accurate, knowing that it was not. Some of the e-mails discuss "hiding the decline" which refered to covering up the curve of tree-ring temperatures in the late 20th century which said we were cooling. Their own data set that they claimed was so reliable was known by them to completely misrepresent recent, known, measured temperatures. Instead of being open about the problems in the data and method, they covered it up. That's scientific fraud, for which Michael Mann is now being investigated.
It also turns out that the entire surface temperature record has been fudged. To cover that up, the organization resposible for it has suddenly "lost the original, raw data." How convenient.
Um, you do realize that the simplistic view I cite was written by the AGW scientists?
The data and methods of the people you claim to support produced that view. More warming = less snow - in 9 different global climate models representing tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars of research. If there's a hindering shortcoming, it would be with the AGW scientists who produced the research I linked.
Also, the entire Northern Hemisphere is hardly "local climate." It's more like half the planet. In fact, it's exactly the half of the planet. The other half gets its winter in a few months, but for now the half of the planet experiencing winter is experiencing a very snowy one.
Um, that would be the AGW scientists who wrote all those research papers showing exactly that. As for open access, yes, that is a requirement for science. Why do you think it's published? Without granting access to data and methods an experiment can't be reproduced, and without independently reproducible results there is no scientific method. It becomes, "Take my word for it. I performed some secret incantations, added my secret catalyst, and successfully transmuted lead into gold. I'd explain how, but it's a secret."
It did absolutely nothing of the sort... all it did was give ammo for people who believe that slander is an appropriate response to science. Like the sorts of people who open an argument by comparing scientists to nazis.
You are the one saying that an increase in temperature can only have one affect, in all cases, all the time. This is overly simplistic and is just plain wrong. Once again, it is fortunate that actual scientists are not hindered by the overly simplistic, but apparently comforting, worldview you cling to. What's also amazing is the extreme amount of cherry picking you've been able to do... why try and present the whole picture what you can take two details and manufacture a way to pretend there's a contradiction?Um, you do realize that the simplistic view I cite was written by the AGW scientists?
Nonsense. Scientists publish papers and then they get peer reviewed. If someone doesn't agree with the results they can do their own study... and most importantly, the people doing these other studies will be scientists. Not faux-experts making noise on blogs or the people who irresponsibly parrot them. Further, lay-people like you and I wouldn't even understand the implications of the raw data... so what do you want it for exactly?