Must be that global warming…


Of course it’s just weather, however.

While winter is a distant memory for most Americans, it continues unabated in Anchorage, Alaska — where a new bout of precipitation this weekend helped the city break its record for seasonal snowfall, at more than 133 inches (3.38 meters).

In fact, if there actually were some global warming (we haven’t seen any in 15 years), you might see some happier natives.

“Okay…now the records broken [it stood for 57 years – bing], could you please make the snow go away??!!”

Can’t blame whoever said that. Usually Alaska sees an average of around 60 inches or a full one and a half metres less snow over the long winter season.

And no wonder with news like that, we’re seeing the following.

Green campaigners and climate scientists are losing the public debate over global warming, one of the movement’s leading proponents has admitted.

Dr James Hansen, director of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who first made warnings about climate change in the 1980s, said that public scepticism about the threat of man-made climate change has increased despite the growing scientific consensus.

Consensus, eh? Well, James. Perhaps people’s growing scepticism maybe, just maybe has something to do with that consensus and your their years of grossly exaggerated computer model BS fear-mongering that time has allowed us to check out.

And boy oh boy have there been some whoppers, such as these by Australia’s own government-funded $180,000 per year part time Climate Commissioner, Tim Flannery.

Keeping it on the home front, it could be that folks became a little more cynical when the weather was used by a government that can’t balance the books as an excuse to impose a giant new tax on everyone.

Advertisements
  1. When the ice melts, there’s more water in the atmosphere, which freezes and comes down as snow when it’s cold. If it’s too confusing to attribute it to “global warming,” start calling it “climate change” and sit in on a high school earth science class.

    • Joe, we’re all well aware of high school earth science/geology class.

      But let’s run with your position regardless, and assume that all the moisture from melting Arctic ice stays in the Arctic and isn’t blown around the globe. Let’s also assume the sun has no role to play, nor the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, el nino, la nina…

      Let’s go with your position that “[w]hen the ice melts, thereโ€™s more water in the atmosphere, which freezes and comes down as snow when itโ€™s cold.”

      If this were so, if it were all as easy as that, then we could conclude that perhaps 2006 or 2011 should have seen the heaviest snowfalls as that year corresponds with the biggest winter “melt”, or more accurately, the least amount of winter sea ice since we’ve been keeping detailed records (which isn’t very long at all in a geological sense).

      We should have also seen more snow in 2005, 2006, and possibly even in 2009.

      But we didn’t.

      In fact, we’ve seen more winter sea ice in 2011-12 than in the last seven years – with perhaps an exception to 2010 – although, yes, it is still a little below average (but by gosh that average is taken over a short time period). But according to your hypothesis, more sea ice should mean less snow.

      But we’ve had more snow.

      And it’s not melting as fast as previous years, either. And yet we’ve had more snow.

      Thus, your explanation falls over there.

      (and what about Antarctic sea ice which is above the average? http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png)

      Now let’s move on to your next claim in the reply to Sean.

      “My teachers told me to question things too, but they also taught me to respect authority. When 97% of all climatologists who devote their entire lives to studying this stuff say that climate change is a real and dangerous threat, I have to back off and admit that they probably know more about this than me.”

      Sorry if I’m the first one to break it to you, but that 97% thingy is a myth.

      http://socyberty.com/issues/myth-97-of-climate-scientists-are-in-a-consensus-of-destructive-climate-change/

      http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2012/03/consensus-myth-97-of-nothing.html

      And even if you don’t like those links, it’s hard to ignore that 31,000 scientists have come out signing a petition – http://petitionproject.org/ – expressing their doubts over AGW.

      Ohhh, but they might not all be climate scientists! Well, just take a closer look at some of the people who do claim to be climate scientists – a very young field of discipline. In Australia, we have Tim Flannery; claims he’s a climate scientists but hasn’t had a prediction come anywhere close to being right and is actually a paleontologist.

      Yes, his actual area of expertise is dinosaurs and something I’ve always found ironic is that of all scientists, he should know that climate can change quite rapidly.

      But anyway, you mentioned geology, so why not go to a top geologist? Take Ian Plimer who’s had an extensive look into this and can’t find anything outside natural variability.

      http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/

      Or how about Richard Lindzen? The bloke is frickin’ MIT. Professor of atmospheric physics.

      Yet more people are more inclined to believe the words of an ex-politician such as Al Gore.

      Astounding really.

      But let’s say I actually AM wrong, that the climate really is changing (and no one denies natural climate change), changing too fast, that any warming is actually bad, and that all or most of this is primarily driven by mankind, namely our emissions of a trace atmospheric gas – CO2 – that makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere and that our 5% of that 0.04% (0.002%) IS driving climate and that by reducing that 0.002% by, say, 20%, will solve all the weather problems that we’re supposedly having.

      Let’s run with that (absurd) hypothesis…

      What’s the cost to fix it compared to the cost to adapt to it? Has anyone ever done a cost benefit analysis? Has your government?

      Thankfully someone has, an AGW believer no less.

      Currently, the UN wants $76 TRILLION from governments – and that means you and me buddy – to combat a problem that more and more think might not exist (or exist severely enough to warrant action).

      http://thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/8128-un-demands-76-trillion-for-green-technology

      $76 trillion.

      Excuse me, but in case you haven’t noticed, governments around the world don’t have any money anymore. Ok, ok, China does, so maybe they’ll save the planet. ๐Ÿ™„

      AGW is a scam. If it weren’t, why does Julia Gillard and the like keep having to refer to the oderless, colourless, tasteless trace gas CO2 and liken it to dirty black sooty carbon?

      Why?

      Why the claims of unprecedented this and unprecedented that when history shows the same and worse has happened plenty of times in the past?

      Why is every scare based on computer models that have been shown up time and time again now to be utterly wrong?

      Why the dodgy deals that emerged when Climategate broke out?

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204452104577059830626002226.html

      The gig is up but if you’re still concerned, then start promoting “low-carbon” things that actually WORK, like nuclear power. Encourage research into thorium reactors.

      Another summit at some exotic location, attended by thousands propped up with your tax dollars isn’t the answer and neither is taxing and/or trading thin air.

      • Jesus, this is a long one. Well, let’s get started.

        The sun, El Nino, and the flap of a butterfly wing certainly do affect global temperatures, and it’s some of those chaotic forces of nature that are causing you to see those imperfect patterns in 2006, 2011, or any other year you want to nitpick. I don’t know where you think all that moisture goes after it melts on the surface, and I’m not going to insult your intelligence by assuming for you. Nature is chaos, and although the data doesn’t show a consistent straight line over a thirty year period, there’s a clear trend toward higher temperatures stemming all the way back to the Industrial Revolution.

        You attacked my 97% argument by directing me to a porn blog and naming individual scientists who share your view. Nevertheless, you’re right. It’s hard to gauge just how many scientists do believe in climate change because of the countless fields within the field (though I don’t believe I ever mentioned the term “geology”) and the inherent nature of science itself demands others to challenge the most well-accepted theories. Meteorologists are among the most vocal opponents of climate change evidence, probably because they’re still allowed to keep that “ologist” at the end of their titles without ever having to study climate science. But linking to random scientist names and Al Gore jokes only further politicizes and polarizes an issue that should be relegated to science. And in that department, there’s only one man you can really trust to explain difficult, faceless facts in an understandable and compelling manner. Bill Nye the Science Guy. Here he is debating aptly named meteorologist Joe Bastardi, who took your original argument about how it’s cold outside:

        Seventy-six trillion dollars is definitely quite the price tag, but with the fate of the entire world at stake, can we really afford not to do everything we can? My country went through a catastrophic recession in the 1930s, but in one unified push to stop the Nazis, we came through it stronger than ever. If we, the collective, unyielding spirit of humanity, could rid the world of global fascism with nothing but a dream, surely we can reduce the amount of CO2 in the air by a few parts per million with 21st century technology and Chuck Norris. I’ve been a vocal proponent of safe nuclear power, geothermal power, solar power, wind power, methane power — anything but the non-renewable energy sources that are literally killing us.

        Now I really have to go to sleep.

        • You attacked my 97% argument by directing me to a porn blog…

          Wasn’t me buddy. Double checked the links. And I’d hope not. I wrote that reply on a break at work… at a school.

          Good to see you’ve got those priorities in check but. Man can’t live on climate science alone! ๐Ÿ˜‰

          There are a couple of counter arguments I’d deal with, but perhaps another time…

    • Sean of Deer Park
    • April 9th, 2012

    That’s cute, Joe. Sit in on a high school Earth Science class, really? Maybe I’m getting too cynical with age. Perhaps you are kidding and I missed the joke.

    Back in the Eighties, I indeed sat in on all my Geography periods. Top marks, too. I completed Geography for my HSC and then went on to study Earth Science at university. Can’t say I recall I was ever tested on “Global Warming” or “Climate Change”. We did discuss the next coming “Ice Age”, but it was only a theory and not taken too seriously. Funny that, eh.

    My favourite teacher, my Geography teacher, tried to encourage me to become a “Geography Teacher” as a career path. I did something else. I thought there would be more money in Computing (which turned out to be a good move).

    The best lesson that Geography teacher instilled in me, was the ability to question what you are told and think for yourself. Teachers back then wanted you to leave school with the skills to participate in and contribute to society. Many things are indeed black and white, 1 + 1 = 2, etcetera, although brainwashing and indoctrination was not part of the curriculum.

    But no, sorry Joe, Ice does not necessarily evaporate and fall as snow; it could end up falling as rain over Queensland. It may end up as rain over Alice Springs or even snow in Alaska where it will probably remain frozen for a long time. One thing is for certain; it ain’t proof of dastardly “global warming”, the voodoo science hypothesis no-one has been able to prove because the facts don’t fit with the warmists theories. It is hilarious however, watching their funding dry up. Now that is change I can get behind.

    The point is; weather is a natural process. It has happened before and it will happen again. Records of hot and cold are interesting events, but as Bingbing says, it’s just weather. If that is too confusing for you Joe, sorry mate, but the education system may have failed you.

    • Maybe I’m not old enough. Did they use to teach weather patterns in geography? When I was in school, geography was about where countries were on a map. My teachers told me to question things too, but they also taught me to respect authority. When 97% of all climatologists who devote their entire lives to studying this stuff say that climate change is a real and dangerous threat, I have to back off and admit that they probably know more about this than me. Weather is indeed a natural process, but the rate of change is too great to pass off as anything natural. This chart shows a pretty clear example of that, but first you have to accept that the earth is older than 6,000 years old and that there’s people out there much smarter than you (even geography teachers):

      http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html

      • Hmm. Had a look at that EPA link, noteably the Mann/Jones surface temperature graph.

        Mann and Jones managed to completely eradicate the Medieval Warm Period, and have been thoroughly discredited for it.

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/05/united-nations-pulls-hockey-stick-from-climate-report/

        The UN has even pulled it. Pity the EPA hasn’t caught up, but with a zealot like Stephen Chu running as Obama’s science Czar, I’m not surprised.

      • Sean of Deer Park
      • April 9th, 2012

      Thanks for the reply, Joe. Yes, back in the Seventies and Eighties, Geography covered all “Earth Science”; including Climate, Mapping, Tectonics, Flora and Fauna, Population, Astronomy, Beach Systems, Sustainable living (The need for building Dams and adapting to population growth) and a myriad of other interesting topics. This was in both Victoria and NSW education systems. In Grade 5 at Primary School, we learnt about reading (predicting) weather charts and general orienteering.

      It wasn’t just in the classroom either. Geography excursions I went on included trips to Tasmania to study Huon Pine forests, Hydroelectricity and Australian Convict history. A trip to Ayers Rock and King’s Canyon (the very week before the dingo took the baby, the dingo were friendly BTW). The Grampians in Victoria, studying River Tracts, native wildlife and Geological formations. The Otway Ranges and Great Ocean Road, looking at the land versus sea and rainfall, erosion. Sydney Harbour and Port Phillip Bay for Beach systems and Sea Level. Gold Coast and North Queensland to study lower rivers, beach, hinterlands and rainforests, which was particularly awesome. It’s a real shame school no longer does the practical stuff as part of the general semester. All those trips were arranged by State Schools, not Private, in case you were wondering. Some of the best experiences of my life happened on those trips. (For example, the first time I had sex with a girl was in an Opal mine in Cooper Pedy on the NT trip. ๐Ÿ˜† )

      It is good to respect authority, to a point. People from 1930’s Germany would have an opinion on respecting Hitler, let me assure you. It doesn’t mean they were right. Polite inquiry and the right to speak your own mind should always be the order of the day. Remember, the Earth is not flat after all. Imagine if people didn’t question authority, where we would be today. If you have not read 1984, make it your business to do so.

      I don’t really know why you quip about the earth being older than 6000 years old. I don’t think that. I also know there are many people out there smarter than me, I was educated by them and still am today. Learning never stops. But I am able to make rational decisions, look at what is being presented and know when I’m being had. Taxing the population can not change the weather.

      Just keep in mind, politician’s may set the agenda and spend societies money, but you do not need any qualifications to be an elected politician.

        • Sean of Deer Park
        • April 9th, 2012

        Oops! That would be Coober Pedy. TMI anyways… ๐Ÿ˜†

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Surely you're thinking something...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: