Posted on 06/29/2007 6:28:24 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
Since summer officially arrived Thursday at 2:06 p.m., it has been anything but summer-like in the weather department.
We set a new record low temperature at Avoca on Sunday morning when the mercury dipped to 47 degrees. That beat the previous record set in 1993 by 1 degree. While summer is less than a week old, it has been a cool start to the season so far.
Thursday and Sunday saw temperatures in the low 80s, which is average for this time of year. But Friday and Saturday had highs in the low 70s, a crystal-clear blue sky and low humidity.
(Excerpt) Read more at thetimes-tribune.com ...
No, everyone knows that cold weather is caused by Global Warming.
And didn’t the Greenies warn us how hot and dry it would be in Texas this summer?
Why? The Climate Change predictions are for greater extremes in weather, including areas of cooling. Note the word "Global" in "Global Warming"...many individual parts of a system may go down even while a central tendency ("average") goes up.
Anyone who denies that climate change is occurring just isn't paying attention. The main question now is, "How much, if any, is anthropogenic?" Tomorrow's question will be, "what can/should we do about it?" And that doesn't mean necessarily fighting it...it could be, "how do we adapt, even if it's natural?"
AlGore is a victim of Global Norming.
Yeah, these guys are real idiots:
Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards
Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.
Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.
Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant
Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology
Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta
Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria
Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax
Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.
Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta
Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.
Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.
Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists
Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.
Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.
Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment
Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand
Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z.
Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut
Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.
Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.
Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service
Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society
Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.
Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland
Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.
Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.
Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health
Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist
Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
It’s really very simple -
High Temperatures = Global Warming
Low Temperatures = Global Warming
Lots of Rain = Global Warming
Lack of Rain = Global Warming
Follow those simple rules, and you’ll eventually get the hang of it.
Kind of reminds me of John Hurt in "1984"..."How many fingers am I holding up?"
Anyone who denies that climate change is occurring just isn't paying attention.
The UN/IPCC usage of the term "Climate Change" means anthropogenic cause. It is an apriori assumption implicit in treaty obligations whenever said term is used in the context of political action.
An Economist's Perspective on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol,
by Ross McKitrick. November 2003
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/McKitrick.pdfThe 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) defined "climate change" as follows:
- "Climate change" means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
( http://unfccc.int/index.html )The recent Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defined it differently ( http://www.ipcc.ch/ ):
- Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.
The main question now is, "How much, if any, is anthropogenic?"
Anthropogenic cause is presumed within the term "Climate Change" thus no such question remains to be answered in the the view of climate alarmists and political opportunists. In using the term you have stipulated that the cause is anthropogenic.
You have provided us with names of those who agree that climate change is occurring but don’t believe it is anthropogenic.
There...fixed it. The UNFCCC uses "climate variability" to describe natural fluctuations. As you pointed out, the IPCC includes these natural fluctuations in the term "climate change."
I refuse to yield that terminology change to the UNFCCC version you use, since that means we'd have to say, "The currently observed change in climate from a century ago is not a climate change." "The currently observed change in climate from a century ago is a climate change, but it might be merely climate fluctuation."
Even if we accept your UNFCCC terminology, then the whole point of the article becomes meaningless, as we can't differentiate a mere anthropogenic climate change from natural climate fluctuation based on the Scranton data.
In using the termyouthe UNFCCC have stipulated that the cause is anthropogenic.
There...fixed it. The UNFCCC uses "climate variability" to describe natural fluctuations. As you pointed out, the IPCC includes these natural fluctuations in the term "climate change."
I refuse to yield that terminology change to the UNFCCC version you use, since that means we'd have to say: "The currently observed change in climate from a century ago is not a climate change." Instead, if makes more sense to say: "The currently observed change in climate from a century ago is a climate change, but it might be merely climate fluctuation."
Even if we accept your UNFCCC terminology, then the whole point of the article becomes meaningless, as we can't differentiate a mere anthropogenic climate change from natural climate fluctuation based on the Scranton data.
Sheesh...I’m not doing too well!
I MEANT to add.... “Instead, it makes more sense to say:”
Apologies to all!
The greatest fleecing ever of the American public is just around the corner. Where not only will it be debated whether climate change is occurring but that it *is* occurring and blame must be assessed by how much humanity is responsible.
Any amount as so judged by a liberal "scientific" community will never be able to be paid for in full. A constantly moving target will assure our pockets will be picked for years to come.
Anyone who closely READS my posts on these threads will know what I am saying.
I refuse to yield that terminology change to the UNFCCC version you use
LOL, you don't have a say, in the usage it has already been decided by UN treaty obligations.
Climate Change in regards international law and its US law, as we are adherants to the 1992 "UN Framework Convention on Climate Change ", controls the political debate regarding statutes and regulations.
Science has nothing to do with it, global political control and regulation of economies is the controlling and end product of this debate. The usage of political terms is a matter of international law and political shenannigans at this point. The issue is about political and economic control and nothing else.
You may argue your points all you wish, it will not change the terms of the real debate that remains hidden from your view as long as you fail to recognize what the real debate is actually about and insist on arguing from the wrong premises.
That is why the Political Summary from the IPCC states "Climate Change" is anthropogenic to a 90% certainty. The statement is a political statment not a statement of science. It is based on a concensus , a beysian estimate, of wearing the scientist's frock for cover and misdirection.
Mix UN/IPCC consensus driven politics with science the animal you get is anything but science.
The genesis of the UN/IPCC's current uncertainty guidance paper comes from the concepts expressed in this paper authored by Steven Schneider (one of the historical heavy lifters in the anthropogenic global warming crew) on the subject of how uncertainty should be expressed in IPCC papers:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/UncertaintiesGuidanceFinal2.pdf
"A final note before turning to the specific recommendations themselves-the paper assumes that for most instances in the TAR, a "Bayesian" or "subjective" characterization of probability will be the most appropriate (see, e.g., Edwards, 1992, for a philosophical basis for Baysian methods; for applications of Bayesian methods, see e.g., Anderson, 1998; Howard et al., 1972). The Bayesian paradigm is a formal and rigorous language to communicate uncertainty. In it, a "prior" belief about a probability distribution (typically based on existing evidence) can be updated by new evidence, which causes a revision of the prior, producing a so-called "posterior" probability. Applying the paradigm in the assessment process involves combining individual authors' (and reviewers') Bayesian assessments of probability distributions and would lead to the following interpretation of probability statements: the probability of an event is the degree of belief that exists among lead authors and reviewers that the event will occur, given the observations, modeling results, and theory currently available. When complex systems are the topic, both prior and updated probability distributions usually contain a high degree of (informed) subjectivity. Thus in the TAR, we expect Bayesian approaches to be what is most often meant when probabilities are attached to outcomes with an inherent component of subjectivity or to an assessment of the state of the science from which confidence characterisations are offered."
And the intent of the use of such terms:
"It is certainly true that "science" itself strives for objective empirical information to test theory and models. But at the same time "science for policy" must be recognized as a different enterprise than "science" itself, since science for policy (e.g., Ravetz, 1986) involves being responsive to policymakers' needs for expert judgment at a particular time, given the information currently available, even if those judgments involve a considerable degree of subjectivity. "
The same Steven Schneider responsible for this quote:
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
(Steven Schneider, Quoted in Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989; and (American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996).
So you seem to be in the camp that calls a semi-automatic hunting rifle an "assault weapon" just beacuse "the usage has been decided" by the gubmint.
Interesting you should bring up my old nemesis Steven Schneider... I became a pariah in graduate school for being my impertinent public disagreement with a professor who quoted him (”To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”)
You are aware, no doubt, of Dr. Schneider’s earlier comments on climate.
So you seem to be in the camp that calls a semi-automatic hunting rifle an "assault weapon" just beacuse "the usage has been decided" by the gubmint.
When you don’t recognize the political stakes and terms of the debate, in this case national sovereignty, and personal freedom. You loose.
The debate is political, not scientific.
" 'science for policy' must be recognized as a different enterprise than 'science itself"
Your issues are a nonstarter in the international political debate where the real fight must be fought.
You are aware, no doubt, of Dr. Schneider’s earlier comments on climate.
Of that I am very much aware, I am also aware the Schneider and his ilk will win, if we don't take on the "science for policy", i.e. political fight that must be fought far a beyond that of science fact.
Losing the propaganda war by falling into the bait and switch semantic trap will be the real disaster. Conceding the existence of "Climate Change" by allowing the inclusion of that treaty defined term into law out of lack of understanding the import of its meaning under treaties and international law will indeed be death knell of political debate that stands before us.
Scranton. I love “The Office.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.