Accuweather Global Warming: 1997-2006 was Warmest in last 1,300 years in the Northern Hemisphere

For paulm: the “Jason” story should be considered carefully.

The idea of a shadowy organization capable of keeping tens of brilliant, famous minds in San Diego for 6 weeks every year, without arising suspicion, doesn’t seem likely.

I also find the suggestion that climate change skeptics have been able to “successfully delay significant political action to deal with greenhouse gas emissions” laughable in the extreme. Just look at the IPCC, and at the Kyoto Protocol (whose child called the “emission trading scheme” has meant billions of dollars in profit for energy companies in the EU, by the way).

Also note that the authors are Oreskes (the one unable to properly count pro-warming scientific papers) and Renouf (going to broadcast a programme on BBC2 the same day of that article’s publication, and thus in need of pumping the whole thing up to say the least).

Advertisement

Accuweather Global Warming: Cause of Massive Ice Shelf Collapse Questioned

BrooklineTom

I’d certainly do without the Nazis but…why shouldn’t I be able to answer oranges with oranges, so to speak??

There is an overwhelming consensus that the expression “Global warming denier” has been deliberately coined to equate AGW heretics to people denying the Holocaust.

And “Denier” is often repeated by people fully aware of the horrible connotations around it.

Check what happened on CBS around a year ago. Or the stuff this article, some mainstream media pieces making more or less the same point.

In any case, Goebbels’ words have been used in all sort of propaganda tricks, not just to build the Holocaust.

Hey, am I accusing you of participating in the killing hundreds of millions of people or what?

(and that’s an argumentum ad absurdum, if you don’t get it)

Accuweather Global Warming: Cause of Massive Ice Shelf Collapse Questioned

By the way…I liked (part of) Aaron’s comment so much, I blogged about it:

Me “Denier”? You “Goebbelite”!”

And I wouldn’t mind being called a heretic

Accuweather Global Warming: A Regional Assessment of Climate Change Impacts

There is a giant reporting bias in the MARA findings and I wonder if I am the only one able to spot it (or otherwise, if I am just very wrong on this point).

For example on “Human Health” there is no mention of the obvious reduction in cold-related deaths. At least, I hope there has been some reduction. Actually, if there has been none, THEN that would be a major finding on its own

The trouble is that one cannot simply say “let’s look at the changes” and then report _any_ change that is seen, and especially the bad ones. There is lots that keeps changing every day every where, but each particular item may or may not be of any significance.

Observations should follow some underlying hypothesis. Otherwise, everything that changes is going to be a “finding”: worse, there will be all the chance for a “pick and choose” of findinds in one direction or another.

Accuweather Global Warming: Clarification on the Global Warming Groups

I recently found an interesting classification of degrees of skepticism:

Proponents
Anomalists
Mystery-mongers
Scoffers

It relates to people skeptical of the paranormal but with some modification could be applied to the AGW debate as well…

more details at Four Degrees of Skepticism

Accuweather Global Warming: Initial Poll Results

Maurizio Morabito:

Skepticism is the only answer. Everything else is by definition unwarranted.

And by the way…when something becomes self-evident, it’s not science any longer 😎

Posted by Maurizio Morabito | January 17, 2008 8:25 AM

Accuweather Global Warming: In Case You Missed It

Maurizio Morabito:

It appears that the Patagonian glaciers are so plentiful anybody can pick-and-choose one or the other to prove or disprove Global Warming.

For example the Pio XI glacier advanced for 50 straight years from 1945 to 1995. The Perito Moreno glacier has been used in movies by Al Gore (and by Frank Capra, in 1958) as proof of warming: unfortunately, they both show the phenomenon of calving, usually a characteristic of advancing glaciers.

And of course there are the dramatic pictures of the retreating Upsala glacier, whose story in truth is a bit complicated.

I have written a brief overview of the scientific literature on the topic of Patagonian glaciers.

Accuweather Global Warming: World Temperature Analysis so far this Year

Hansen acknowledges that different groups may come up with different results regarding global temperatures.

How different? The HadCRUT set says something so completely different from the GISS statement, one wonders if they are referring to the same planet

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

If you go there you’ll see the southern ocean temperatures in November are the second-lowest in 16 years, and the only notable warming is in northern landmasses (2nd highest level in the record). Everything else is around or below the median values for more than one decade.

Brett: I understand you are “moderating” but there must be one person at Accuweather allowed to perform computations and report their results…why don’t you identify such a person and ask to report sometimes in January or February on what the various data sets (NOAA, GISS, HadCRUT, etc) actually say, regardless of what their proprietors claim they are saying?

Accuweather Global Warming Blog: Gore and the IPCC Win the Nobel Peace Prize

Maurizio Morabito:

Regardless of what you think of AGW, this is the first time in history that a Nobel prize has been given BEFORE the fact.

Usually science prizes are given to relatively older people as a lifetime achievement award. And usually, the Peace prize is the recognition of tangible results in the very recent past.

AGW has not happened yet, and there is no evidence yet that Al Gore or the IPCC have done something that will effectively stop/prevent it. There is no tangible result, not even a Kyoto-II agreement to speak of.

———

The other issue I would like to see discussed is how come a “scientific” group like the IPCC gets a political prize. Will the award settle the discussion of what the IPCC actually is, namely a campaigning lot and not the reliable repository of scientific information we had been told?

Posted by Maurizio Morabito | October 13, 2007 3:05 AM

Accuweather Global Warming Blog: Surface Temperatures Correlate to Ice Free region

I find it amusing that people reading the Accuweather web site would find “temperature” so important “per se”.

As any metereologist would explain (feel free to correct me, Brett), if it’s “hot” in a place (eg the North Pole) it must be because something is happening in the skies above, such as an increase of cloud-free areas, or winds bringing warmer air in this case obviously from the South.

I doubt that anybody would believe that CO2 molecules are actually floating around above the pole reflecting IR radiation and directly causing the temperature increases/ice melting/etc etc.

Clouds and winds in turn are regulated by atmospheric circulation.

Therefore to prove that AGW or whatever is causing ice-free areas at the pole, then it must be shown how AGW or whatever is causing those particular conditions of clouds and winds. I don’t think there is anything of the sort in any of the models, at the moment

Accuweather Global Warming Blog: CO2 not the Prime Suspect in Ending Last Ice Age

Note that Stott’s result appear to contradict the standard interpretation of ice-core data.

It is likely that in a few years it will be recognized that ice cores are almost impossibly hard to interpret for investigating past climates, as gases (and liquid water) keep mixing vertically throughout a glacier

Accuweather Global Warming Blog: Is the Late Paleozoic Era a Prequel to Current Global Warming?

Brett: How can we compare present-day to a time where there was a supercontinent? Has orography no effect at all on climate?

Accuweather Global Warming Blog: McIntyre vs. Hansen Saga Continues

It is a pity that all-too-human tempers had to generate so much noise in what should be a matter of course. Anyway, the original reluctance to release the code was completely illogical, especially if we only have less than a decade to stop climate change, as Hansen uses to say.

My impression now is that the AGWers have lost the upper hand…after all, their argument relies on a tiny 0.6C temp increase.

But really, this should not be like following sports on the radio. The only thing that truly matters is if all alarms we got so far were almost baseless or not