Half Moon Bay Review
 
 
 
 
 
TalkAbout Start a topic Login Create Login Forgot Password  
All Categories Around Town Elections Entertainment/Dining Schools
City Council Environment Sports Beyond the Coastside Catch All
Clay Lambert's Blog Mark Foyer's Blog Stacy Trevenon's blog Mark Noack's blog Bill Murray's Blog

20th Century Warming "Nothing Unusual"

So sayeth three German scientists that studied temperature records going back 2500 years:

Web Link

The German trio of scientists says the 0.7°C of warming occurring since the late 19th century is the result of the increase in the De Vries / Suess solar cycle and that the well-known oceanic AMO/PDO oscillations can also be seen. “These two cycles practically determine by themselves the earth’s temperature.”

The scientists add that the “pause“ in global warming is caused by the AMO/PDO, which has been on the decline since 2000. The De Vries / Suess solar cycle allows a general cooling up to the year 2080 to be predicted and that the global temperature will reach a level last seen in 1870.

For more on AMO/PDO cycles, see: Web Link

Seems to be we'd be better off developing ways to grow food in colder climates than foolishly trying to stop climate change by regulating plant food.


Comments

Well, all I can say is we've lived in this house since 1986 and we've never, ever!, had our windows open all night 45+ days in a row because of the heat... until this year. Previous years we've had maybe 3 or 4 nights with the need to dissipate heat...


And that means ... what?

The scientists showed that nothing is unusual about the warming we've seen in the last part of the 20th century, and that the changes can largely be explained by natural cycles, and not AGW.


The surest sign of desperation is the constant seeking of public validation for your point of view.


^^^ The surest sign of desperation is the constant seeking of public validation for your point of view. ^^^

This is a thread on the science of climate, not one of your pathetic attempts to declare The Inevitable Madam Hillary "innocent" of her self-inflicted legal woes.


Is this point any different than you have attempted to make in the previous 100 threads promoting climate change denial? It has been found that approximately 97 percent of papers stating a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) endorse AGW, while 2 percent reject AGW.

You are certainly well within your rights to consistently quote from the 2%. Perhaps you can persuade some folks. Here are a few books you might want to look at.

Web Link

Web Link

Web Link


This is a thread on the science of climate, not one of your

It is one of hundreds, as BB points out. That was my point, Honeybilge.

After a while, it translates to "LOOK AT ME!!!! LOOK AT ME!!!! LOOK AT ME!!!!".

Some little Michigander didn't get enough attention as a little boy.


^^^ promoting climate change denial? ^^^

There you go lying again, "Boney Bills!" Produce the thread ... any thread ... where I have denied climate change.

And you're still using that "98% of scientists" canard, too. It was phony survey all along and it's not the way real science in conducted.

Evidence is mounting that you climate alarmists are wrong about the adverse effects of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

If anyone is in denial it's you climate catastrophe alarmists.


^^^ ... Michigander ... ^^^

You're a really creep puke, "Coasters." And a complete and utter coward, too.


Web Link ..... FORBES: " '97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong' "


"After a while, it translates to "LOOK AT ME!!!! LOOK AT ME!!!! LOOK AT ME!!!!"." "After a while...? We passed that point a decade ago. It's only gotten more pronounced since then.

"Some little Michigander didn't get enough attention as a little boy." Sure does appear that way, doesn't it?

But hey, deny on fool. Somebody has to keep that 2% alive.

"Plant food" my a.. foot.


What is wrong with you people?


Here is the bottom line from the Forbes opinion piece:

"Even if 97% of climate scientists agreed with this, and even if they were right, it in no way, shape, or form would imply that we should restrict fossil fuels–which are crucial to the livelihood of billions."

That is the real message. Protect the oil industry. Protect the coal industry.

The author of the article "Alex Epstein is founder of the Center for Industrial Progress and author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels." Mr. Epstein has a degree in Philosophy from Duke University. I guess that qualifies him as an expert on climate change.

Here is a quote from "The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels"

“Compared with the alternatives, the overall impact of using fossil fuels is to make the world a far better place. We are morally obligated to use more fossil fuels for the sake of our economy and our environment.”

The Koch Brothers are the primary sponsor of Center for Industrial Progress.


"What is wrong with you people?" Well, gee, I don't know. Do you suppose that it might have anything to do with;

* "And that means ... what?"

* "This is a thread on the science of climate, not one of your pathetic attempts to declare The Inevitable Madam Hillary "innocent" of her self-inflicted legal woes."

* "There you go lying again,"

* "It was phony survey all along and it's not the way real science in conducted."

* "You're a really creep puke, "Coasters.""

* "And a complete and utter coward, too."

And that is just this thread's "contributions" to this board. Maybe after 10 minutes folks get sick of it, let alone after 10 years.

Do you suppose any of that slips in as an answer to your question, uff?


"...you people"?


Francis, you are correct and I misstated. I should have stated that you have consistently denied anthropogenic climate change. I erroneously said that you denied "climate change".

Perhaps calling me a liar for that miscue is a little harsh, however.


Yes, "you people," and George you are included for going along with it. What is this business about outing people's past residences in another state and whatever other sneaky investigations that implies?


"What is this business about outing people's past residences in another state and whatever other sneaky investigations that implies?"

Could you be more vague?


^^^ Perhaps calling me a liar for that miscue is a little harsh, however. ^^^

I'll grant you that. My apologies. That edit feature would have been handy.

^^^ That is the real message. Protect the oil industry. Protect the coal industry. ^^^

Oil is crucial to the livelihood of billions. And not just for energy, either. And especially for folks that live in remote areas along the California coast.

^^^ What is wrong with you people? ^^^

It's George. What were you expecting, a knowledgeable and insightful discussion? Hah! You can be so silly at times.

^^^ '97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong' ^^^

The 97% claim has been debunked numerous times, yet it continues to be used by the shrill climate catastrophe alarmists. Web Link

It's as though they've never heard of the scientific process, and don't know that scientists are supposed to be skeptics.


*NEWS FLASH* - NEWS FLASH - one francis drouillard has actually admitted wrongdoing!!! "I'll grant you that. My apologies." AND Apologized!!!!!!! All in one fell swoop!!!

Has the Earth gone off its axis? Has climate change affected his 'thinking'? Is francis trying to join the civil side of the human race?

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a HUGE step forward in francis' therapy. Let's all recognize the enormous progress and the unbelievable courage it must have taken to make this HUGE first step.

Thank You francis for trying. We know it couldn't have been easy and we greatly appreciate your efforts.

Bless you, francis.


"And not just for energy, either. And especially for folks that live in remote areas along the California coast."

What purpose other than energy does oil have?

But speaking of remote areas, wind farms along the coast or off shore seem like a great opportunity.

Small nuclear reactors may well be the best solution, however

Web Link


You're a really creep puke, "Coasters." And a complete and utter coward, too.

Don't get all stompy-foot, HoneyDearborn.


"What purpose other than energy does oil have?"

Petroleum products are extensive. Plastics, tires, Armor All and other cleaning products to name a few; but no mistaking oil's primary purpose and dollar getter - energy.


1. What's with Coasters apparently outing people?

2. Why is it still up, Clay?

3. Why aren't -you- apologizing, Coasters?


Former NOAA meteorologist says politics and money drives climate catastrophe hysteria: Web Link

For over 15 years an inordinate proportion of government and corporate research grants have been awarded to universities for a single specific purpose: to prove human activities and the burning of fossil fuels are the main driving mechanisms causing global warming.

Unfortunately agendas by strong arm politics and the suppression of contrary views have become the primary tools used to manipulate the media, local and state governments (and in turn the general public) into believing what they want us to believe.

^^^ But speaking of remote areas, wind farms along the coast or off shore seem like a great opportunity. ^^^

Neither wind nor solar can get anywhere near the demand for cheap, reliable and abundant energy as well as fossil fuels. And only natural gas has contributed in any significent way in reducing CO2 emissions. Google recently gave up on a project to show how we can move to alternative energy sources. No time now or I'd provide a link, but the story is buried out there somewhere.

^^^ George you are included for going along with it. ^^^

It's George. What did you expect, insightful and on-topic commentary?


Why aren't -you- apologizing, Coasters?

For what? What was "outed"?


Some corporations get it.

"General Mills Pledges $100 Million to Fight Climate Change: General Mills becomes the latest corporate giant to take a stand against climate change, pledging to cut emissions 28% by 2025. The company will invest more than $100 million in energy efficiency and clean energy, and plans to build partnerships with sustainable and organic farmers to reduce emissions. CEO Ken Powell says General Mills is fighting climate change because it will ultimately be bad for business, and he hopes other companies will follow suit"


^^^ Some corporations get it. ^^^

Most do buckle to political tides whether supported by the science or not.


1. What's with Coasters apparently outing people?

Uff, dear, you can't "out" publicly available information.


^^^And that means ... what?^^^

fd: it means I don't care what the reason is, I don't like it.

And B) It means I don't care if there's a scientist who disagrees, dumping unlimited carbon into the FINITE atmosphere is stupid and needs to be curbed.


"The 97% claim has been debunked numerous times, yet it continues to be used by the shrill climate catastrophe alarmists. "

Results of a couple of studies. There are other similar studies with similar results at the site I reference below

Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010

"(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

Powell, 2013

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[32] This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[33]

Web Link


You're using old assertions that have since been debunked.

Newer surveys suggest that only 52% of meteorologists believe that warming since the 19th century is caused by humans.

We're on to the alarmists. We know how they manipulate the science, the data and the surveys to achieve that political goal that they cannot achieve using science alone.


Coasters says >>Uff, dear, you can't "out" publicly available information.<<

Pumpkin, if people want to share their personal information they will. It's bad form to post things about them without their permission. Didn't your mother teach you that? You'll also recall that this person was initially outed against his will so anything you now dig up was not originally intended for your grubby-fingered perusal. Hence the indignation. Which you seem to be ignoring.


While you didn't source your meteorologist study, the only one I could locate was 2013. Interestingly the same year as the Powell Study which you said was too old.

As to the meteorologist study:

"The misrepresentations of the study have claimed that it contradicts the 97 percent expert consensus on human-caused global warming. The prior studies that have found this high level of consensus were based specifically on climate experts – namely asking what those who do climate science research think, or what their peer-reviewed papers say about the causes of global warming.

The AMS on the other hand is not comprised primarily of climate experts. Some of its members do climate research, but only 13 percent of survey participants described climate as their field of expertise. Among those respondents with climate expertise who have published their climate research, this survey found that 93 percent agreed that humans have contributed significantly to global warming over the past 150 years (78 percent said it's mostly human-caused, 10 percent said it's equally caused by humans and natural processes, and 5 percent said the precise degree of human causation is unclear, but that humans have contributed). Just 2 percent of AMS climate experts said global warming is mostly natural, 1 percent said global warming isn't happening, and the remaining 4 percent were unsure about global warming or human causation."

Web Link

Reading the entire article will benefit many.


Once again, in reference to the American Meteorological Society that Francis referred to:

Here is their position paper on Anthropogenic climate change: Web Link

It states in part

"Climate is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate. It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. The most important of these over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation. While large amounts of CO2 enter and leave the atmosphere through natural processes, these human activities are increasing the total amount in the air and the oceans. Approximately half of the CO2 put into the atmosphere through human activity in the past 250 years has been taken up by the ocean and terrestrial biosphere, with the other half remaining in the atmosphere. Since long-term measurements began in the 1950s, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster than at any time in the last 800,000 years. Having been introduced into the atmosphere it will take a thousand years for the majority of the added atmospheric CO2 to be removed by natural processes, and some will remain for thousands of subsequent years. ......"

The rest of the position paper is quite enlightening as well.


Add a comment

Please login to comment on this topic.

Login Here

Create a Login

Powered by Podium