------ THE SKY IS FALLING ------

[Paradox]

Hi JustTheFacts,

Originally Posted by JustTheFacts

Fair enough, but I wouldn't use Zimbabwe as a sign of crop failure due to climatic cooling - unless you're looking to discredit yourself. If you want to isolate climate as the cause of crop failure, then you ought to stick to places where farming techniques have been stable over tens of years (i.e., first-world countries). In these areas, a crop failure would more likely be due to a change in climate (or a freak storm) rather than politics or poor farming practices.

I wasn't implying Zimbabwe's troubles were a result of climate change. Drought and floods are decimating crop yields in many areas of the world but the problem has not yet reached a level of alarm...at least in the mainstream. Our global food reserves are at historically low levels and abrupt climate change was not factored into the policies attempting to steer the ship back on course. It is difficult to adapt to shifts in major atmospheric and oceanic systems.

That being said, how would you define the dust bowl today? Would another dust bowl be strong evidence for climate change? I'm not sure about that. Perhaps you should think of a better predictor than crop yield.

Also, increasing CO2 levels tend to increase crop yield. So if the climate is cooliing then the reduction in yield do to cooling would probably be offset by the increase in yield due to CO2.

I'd define the Dust Bowl as a period of record temperatures, drought and poor agricultural practices. The scandal related to Hanson of NASA cooking the temperature record books to falsely lead people to believe current temperature surpassed those of the 1930's come to mind. The Dust Bowl was a bi-product of both climate and Anthropogenic causes. Mans influence over the conditions at that time are much more pronounced than they are now. If a Dust Bowl scenario occurred today, of course it would be an indication of climate change...especially considering the lessons learned by our contributions to that tragedy of the 1930's.

Crop yields are not necessarily an indicator of climate change, the shifting of massive global wind and ocean currents is. As for cooling being offset by CO2 fertilizer... if that fertilizer can penetrate ice then you may have a point.

~Paradox

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by The Bulvater

Fair enough, but the APS statement is more of a political comment than a scientific one. What can't be denied is that some 'very clever physicists' managed to pick the workings of the climate change models apart, revealing significant flaws.

Well they're a scientific society, and their opinion is that IPCC view of global warming is correct.

And if we review which scientific bodies of national or international standing have released statements in support of the IPCC. See their wording here.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
InterAcademy Council
Joint science academies' statement 2008
Joint science academies’ statement 2007
Joint science academies’ statement 2005
Joint science academies’ statement 2001
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
Network of African Science Academies
National Research Council (US)
European Science Foundation
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Federation of American Scientists
World Meteorological Organization
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Quaternary Association
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Geological Sciences
European Geosciences Union
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
Geological Society of America
American Geophysical Union
American Astronomical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
American Chemical Society
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
American Statistical Association

And follows a list of the scientific bodies of national or international standing who reject the IPCC's basic findings of human influence on recent climate:

With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.

So it's not just the APS.

If the likes of Gore lead us to a world carbon tax based on dodgy predictive modelling, then they would have creamed us all off with yet another tax scam with no real environmental gain.

I think we know that the greenhouse effect is real. After all without it the earth is an anomalous 33°C too warm.

[The Bulvater]

Originally Posted by Bored Wombat

Well they're a scientific society, and their opinion is that IPCC view of global warming is correct.

And if we review which scientific bodies of national or international standing have released statements in support of the IPCC. See their wording here.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
InterAcademy Council
Joint science academies' statement 2008
Joint science academies’ statement 2007
Joint science academies’ statement 2005
Joint science academies’ statement 2001
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
Network of African Science Academies
National Research Council (US)
European Science Foundation
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Federation of American Scientists
World Meteorological Organization
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Quaternary Association
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Geological Sciences
European Geosciences Union
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
Geological Society of America
American Geophysical Union
American Astronomical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
American Chemical Society
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
American Statistical Association

And follows a list of the scientific bodies of national or international standing who reject the IPCC's basic findings of human influence on recent climate:

With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.

So it's not just the APS.

Your statements don't answer the questions about the reliability of the models, and how they manged to pull them apart. Not that Im qualified myself to understand it, but the question is still out there and unrefuted by global warming alarmists.

I think we know that the greenhouse effect is real. After all without it the earth is an anomalous 33°C too warm.

I don't deny that atmospheric gases and vapours affect the climate /enable life to thrive at current temperatures. I do however have doubts about the magnitude and impact of man's contribution via our CO2 release.

What doesnt help is that the media are so one-sided. I find the media and political attitude counterproductive in that it makes me want a more balanced view - and pushes my view to the other side. One of the first things you learn at school in science class is that when writing up 'experiments' you always discuss the limitations, constraints and uncertainites of whatever it is you are studying. We never got to see that with the Global Warming argument. If scientists / TVprograms dared to undermine the IPCC they were ridiculed rather than refuted in a balanced scientific way.

Incidently, here's another link to another scientist's view against man made global warming
No smoking hot spot | The Australian

No doubt this person will be dismissed as a nutter, in an unscientific way, in due course....

[JustTheFacts]

Originally Posted by Paradox

Our global food reserves are at historically low levels and abrupt climate change was not factored into the policies attempting to steer the ship back on course.

~Paradox

I would guess that decreasing food reserves are more of an indication that major agribusiness does not see an economic benefit to storing excess food, rather than an indication of a change in climate. There are millions of fallow acres that could be farmed if the economics made sense. I guess I am in the mainstream, because I am not alarmed. Nor do I believe that droughts and floods that decimate crop yields are a new problem. In fact, droughts and floods are far, far, less of a problem today than they were in the past. Irrigation solves the drought problem and dams and levees solve the flood problem.

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by JustTheFacts

I would guess that decreasing food reserves are more of an indication that major agribusiness does not see an economic benefit to storing excess food, rather than an indication of a change in climate. There are millions of fallow acres that could be farmed if the economics made sense. I guess I am in the mainstream, because I am not alarmed. Nor do I believe that droughts and floods that decimate crop yields are a new problem. In fact, droughts and floods are far, far, less of a problem today than they were in the past. Irrigation solves the drought problem and dams and levees solve the flood problem.

Hi Justthefacts,

Whether incompetence is the cause of the growing food challenges I do not know. Given the performance of our world leaders it would not surprise me. What matters is that 37 nations experienced riots and unrest due to lack of food this year, if I recall an entire government was ousted (in Haiti maybe - I don't remember) as a result. It is predicted that 100 million people are going to join the ranks of the malnourished if conditions persist.. that is a lot of desperate people with nothing to lose.

From New Orleans to Iowa and in many states in the US we are reminded of how effective the levees and irrigation systems are. Or should I say how effectively ineffective they are in their current state. I think we are treading into uncharted territory where climate and our infrastructure are concerned. Entire weather patterns are changing and infrastructure build around previous patterns are failing. One hundred years storms are coming every four years as a resident of Washington recently was quoted as saying when giving his reason for deciding to move.

If you think what is going on in the world is a mild or insignificant non-event you are in a very small and ever diminishing minority...especially if you believe that climate change has nothing to do with it.

~Paradox

[ThankyouMoneypenny]

Originally Posted by The Bulvater...Incidently, here's another link to another scientist's view against man made global warming
[url=http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

No smoking hot spot | The Australian[/url]

No doubt this person will be dismissed as a nutter, in an unscientific way, in due course....

"So shines a good deed in a weary world." Willy Wonka, 1971

[JustTheFacts]

Originally Posted by Paradox

If you think what is going on in the world is a mild or insignificant non-event you are in a very small and ever diminishing minority...especially if you believe that climate change has nothing to do with it. ~Paradox

Maybe I can get special privledges by being a minority

Do not confuse publicity with reality. Natural disasters, famine, political unrest, etc. seem more prevalent today, because they make good news and because it is far easier to report these events due to global transporation and global media. For whatever reason, people tend to glorify the past and imagine it to be more of a utopia than today. There have always been Natural disasters, famine, and political unrest. The events were just as prevalent as they are today. The main difference is that today, these events are less disasterous in terms of lives lost, because there is a larger safety net.

To give you an example of natural disasters being as prevalent in the past, take the Mississippi River. The following data is from Rivergages.com, which holds the historic water-level data for rivers throughout the US. Here are water levels (in feet) from the river gage on the Mississippi at Arkansas from 1929. Flood stage is 37 feet.

Date Water Level
05/29/1929 58.80 feet
01/28/1930 47.80 feet
02/26/1932 53.50 feet
04/18/1933 51.80 feet
06/05/1933 53.60 feet
04/06/1935 51.70 feet
02/14/1937 53.90 feet
04/07/1945 46.30 feet
05/12/1973 47.60 feet
07/29/2006 53.18 feet

I don't see more major floods happening within the past 20 years. In fact, the data show the opposite. There were 8 floods greater than 45 feet from 1929 to 1945 and 2 major floods since then.

[JustTheFacts]

Originally Posted by Paradox

One hundred years storms are coming every four years as a resident of Washington recently was quoted as saying when giving his reason for deciding to move. ~Paradox

Hmmm. Maybe your friend should check-in with reality. Would it be fair to say that 100-year storms would fall within NOAA's top ten weather events of the last 100 years in Washington? Well, let's look at that. Here are the top ten weather events in Washington from 1900-2000 according to NOAA. Source: http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/pqr/paststorms/washington10.php

10. November 1990 - Statewide Flooding
9. January/February 1916 - Seattle's Greatest Snowstorm
8. February 1996 - Widespread Flooding in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho
7. April 5, 1972 - Washington's Deadliest Tornado Outbreak
6. March 1, 1910 - Stevens Pass Avalanche
5. May 18, 1980 - Eruption of Mount St. Helens
4. August 20 - September 9, 1910 - Massive Forest Fires in Eastern Washington and Northern Idaho
3. January 13, 1950 - The January 1950 Blizzard
2. May/June 1948 - Greatest Spring Snowmelt Flooding
1. October 12, 1962 - The Columbus Day Wind Storm

Gee, it looks pretty spread out over the past 100 years.

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by The Bulvater

Your statements don't answer the questions about the reliability of the models, and how they manged to pull them apart. Not that Im qualified myself to understand it, but the question is still out there and unrefuted by global warming alarmists.

Who is "they" and what is "managed to pull them apart"?

Originally Posted by The Bulvater

I don't deny that atmospheric gases and vapours affect the climate /enable life to thrive at current temperatures. I do however have doubts about the magnitude and impact of man's contribution via our CO2 release.

Do you have doubts that the CO2 has increased, or that humans have caused that increase, or do you think estimates of climate sensitivity are too high?

Originally Posted by The Bulvater

What doesnt help is that the media are so one-sided. I find the media and political attitude counterproductive in that it makes me want a more balanced view - and pushes my view to the other side. One of the first things you learn at school in science class is that when writing up 'experiments' you always discuss the limitations, constraints and uncertainites of whatever it is you are studying. We never got to see that with the Global Warming argument. If scientists / TVprograms dared to undermine the IPCC they were ridiculed rather than refuted in a balanced scientific way.

Sorry, do you claim that the IPCC doesn't discuss uncertainties?
Or do you claim that people who ignore science shouldn't be ridiculed?

Originally Posted by The Bulvater

Incidently, here's another link to another scientist's view against man made global warming
No smoking hot spot | The Australian

No doubt this person will be dismissed as a nutter, in an unscientific way, in due course....

I think that if Dr Evans wrote up his objections in a scientific way and sent them to a journal rather than release to the public, confidence that his agenda was scientific would be greater.

I note that this is unlikely because Dr Evans has never published a paper on Climate Science.

He does raise a point about tropical tropospheric warming patterns, but and there is a lot to read about how well they meet or don't meet with predictions, and the accuracy of the measurements of such.

However, according to climatologists, hot spots at about 10km up in the tropics are not a GHG signal, they occur under any warming. Their absence (if they are in fact absent), is not an argument against greenhouse warming.

[Paradox]

Hi Justthefacts,

Here are some more statistics: FEMA: Washington State Disaster History

Admittedly, a resident claiming to be run out of town by increased natural catastrophe does not necessarily make their claim accurate, but it does mean something. There are a number of studies which quantify dramatic shifts in rainfall patterns over the last few decades and as I stated, infrastructure has not kept up with the change. Here is an article siting one: Precipitation Across U.S. Intensifies Over 50 Years

It seems absurd to deny we are living in a time of climate chaos. What do you make of the shifting jetstream? Did someone just make that up? What about the 11 year solar cycle that is in it's ... what 13th year, NO SOLAR ACTIVITY... Hmmmmm. In two months (if this solar inactivity persists) we will be officially in uncharted territory.

Throughout time, climate change has been the rule not the exception. Furthermore, I agree that we live in an age of information which heightens awareness of events and often embellishes threats for ratings. With that said, CURRENT EVENTS AND STATISTICAL DATA AND RESEARCH PROVE THAT WE ARE LIVING IN A TIME OF ABRUPT CHANGE WHICH MAY DRASTICALLY REDUCE OUR GLOBAL CARRYING CAPACITY.

Did you realize that Antarctica last year had the largest ever recorded sea-ice extent. Did you realize the sun has been in suspended animation lately (again, approaching never before recorded levels) and there is growing concern about the potential climate consequences. Were you aware of the unusual shift in Jet Stream currents? I could go on and on... Cosmic Rays, the THC, Gulf Stream, Panama Isthmus... Oh Yeah, and Anthropogenic Global Warming somewhere down at the bottom of the list.

I am still looking for the silver lining...since you seem to have found it maybe you could give me a more convincing explanation of why the above mentioned events should be of no concern to humanity.

Thanks,

~Paradox

Originally Posted by JustTheFacts

Hmmm. Maybe your friend should check-in with reality. Would it be fair to say that 100-year storms would fall within NOAA's top ten weather events of the last 100 years in Washington? Well, let's look at that. Here are the top ten weather events in Washington from 1900-2000 according to NOAA. Source: National Weather Service - NWS Portland

10. November 1990 - Statewide Flooding
9. January/February 1916 - Seattle's Greatest Snowstorm
8. February 1996 - Widespread Flooding in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho
7. April 5, 1972 - Washington's Deadliest Tornado Outbreak
6. March 1, 1910 - Stevens Pass Avalanche
5. May 18, 1980 - Eruption of Mount St. Helens
4. August 20 - September 9, 1910 - Massive Forest Fires in Eastern Washington and Northern Idaho
3. January 13, 1950 - The January 1950 Blizzard
2. May/June 1948 - Greatest Spring Snowmelt Flooding
1. October 12, 1962 - The Columbus Day Wind Storm

Gee, it looks pretty spread out over the past 100 years.