North Pole Movement

That vary much depends on the period under discussion.

But a study on "food safety" that ignores or downplays bacterial contamination is clearly flawed or using a very odd defintion of safety. Likewise one that lumps all food catagories and pesticides into a single measure of pesticide per area under cultivation is badly flawed.

??? You have presented a source that talks to imports in terms of monetary value. I've yet to see a source that lists the percentage of food consumed in terms of mass much less calories or some other measure of food value of imports vs local production. You did list mass of imports vs mass of exports but that's not the same thing by any means. Of course it's not all that important I was just curious if there was any support for the number.

Why wouldn't they?

You cherry pick the sources that agree with your opinions and ignore the ones that don't. Not a particularly scientific or reasonable approach. Of course that's not a surprise anymore.

 

Oy vey, now they have to drag religion into it. Really?...Kerry comments on the Bible /climate change:
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/09/03/Kerry-The-Bible-Commands-America-Protects-The-Planet-For-Muslim-Countries

Pretty sure the story is changing. Never heard them bring God into it before...But the children were hella upset about those poor iceless polar bears- and who wants to offend God...

Also pretty sure Kerry's God (money- i kid, i kid) is the same as Islams'.

 

We have a cold front coming this weekend. The high Saturday is set for 87F, and then it will plummet down to 66 Saturday night. Sunday it's supposed to get down all the way to 64F! Break out the fleece!

 

Forgive my ignorance, but....


Do we, as a whole, have an imperical experiment that conclusively proves, one way or another, whether climate change exists or not and the relative timeframe/severity thereof?

I have seen computer models that attempt to predict occurrance in the future, but nothing to actually say what it is we are looking at and why it's happening the way we think it is.

Is this asking too much of a scientific community, to throw their own criterion for success or failure right back at them? Or has somebody beat them to it already?

If not, maybe someone should offer a substantial cash prize to the team that can come up with an experiment that justifies further research, rather than a bunch of unemployed degree holders speculating ad nauseum in the name of future funding.

A competition will put the onus of cost back on the scientific community and solve the burden of proof problem, all in one fell swoop and for a fraction of the cost of financing all this research that goes precisely nowhere toward SOLVING the damned problem.

Thanking my intellectual superiors in advance....

 

The short answer is that no one knows much about man made climate change beyond some 200 years and even that is limited and subject to interpretation. On the other side proving a negative in a worldwide system that is influenced by so many factors is close to impossible in only a few decades.

Few people in charge actually want to resolve the issue.
It's politics. Both international and scientific community politics.

No one wants to admit that they don't know. Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy sums it up in the conversation about the ultimate question. As long as both sides continue arguing about it venamently they'll be on the gravy train for life. Supported by one side of the public or the other. This is true for both scientists and politians. As long as the issue is Hot, they are important and well funded.

If it's proven then the solution is obvious if hard to accomplish. The politians and scientist loose the interest and money of the general public. The money instead goes to fixing the problem if it exists.

 

Yes. The climatological history of Earth (if you consider that an "experiment", it's somewhat lacking in controls) proves conclusivly that climate changes over any significant period of time. The problem of course is predicting what those changes will be and if one desires to effect them how to do so. Weather the base for climate is a very complex, dynamic, and chaotic system the shorter the period you look at the more of that is reflected in climate.

 

Good, I hope it gets cold soon and stays like that for awhile. Maybe it will kill off all those hungry mosquitoes we have on the loose around here. And chill the Gulf waters to put the fizzle on any late peculating hurricanes that seem to creep up on us.

 

Well we are having snow. Went down to 0c, it's 4c now. Calgary got 10 centimeters...Would say that is unusual. Refusing to turn heat on. As long as pipes won't freeze, will wear hat/ jacket/ shoes inside. My bills skyrocket when it gets cold/dark. Blast. Why couldn't AG have been right. Screw the poobears.
WW2F has peeps all over a lot of the globe. Most are saying its colder, not hotter. RAM has lived by the ocean all his life (was that Greenland?), and he has not noticed temp or water level changes. So the consensus appears to show a cooling. Real life, not modelled. Not one local observation, but very large areas of NA, and across the pond.

 

I'm sure our good friend Karjala will be back soon with graphs, charts and links to support the theory that we're just imagining the cooler temps.

 

The snow yonder is healthier too. lol, i kid i kid. Glad KJ is here. Honestly enjoy reading his stuff.

 

To be honest I'm a bit bored with this thread. There's really no point continuing since nothing is going to change the minds of the climate deniers - or should I say "critics"...

As has been pointed out several times before, the local weather variations do not prove anything. There are cooler and warmer periods locally, even globally. Still the general, global long term trend is the one which counts.

You might have noticed the increased devastation the storms have caused e.g. in the Eastern coast of the USA? That's also because of the rised water.

"Although the latest U.N. climate report significantly increases its projections for sea level rise this century, some scientists warn even those estimates are overly conservative."
"Things today are more certain. In its latest report, released on September 27, the IPCC finally could and did put a number on ice flow from the poles. The result was an estimate of sea level rise of 28 to 98 centimeters (a maximum of more than three feet) by 2100 — more than 50 percent higher than the 2007 projections. "We have our arms around the problem well enough to say there’s a limit to how crazy things are going to get," says Ted Scambos, head scientist at the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center."

"The ocean doesn’t rise steadily like water poured into a bathtub — instead there are splashes and jiggles in its rise. Weather patterns like El Niño can shove tens of centimeters of water up onto shores for months at a time, as they did in California in 1998."

"Some facts are well established. Researchers can say that global ocean levels have risen about 19 centimeters in the last century. And the rate of rise has sped up. The 20th-century average is about 1.7 millimeters per year; since 1993 the average rate has nearly doubled — to about 3.2 millimeters per year."

"Another problem is untangling short-term from long-term trends. The rate of sea level rise has mysteriously slowed down in the most recent decade, for example....But the slowdown isn’t expected to last."

"In Greenland, researchers have seen the rate of ice melt double since the 1990s, and warm water licking at the edge of the island has increased glacier calving into the sea. More snow is falling, but overall the island is losing weight and is expected to continue to do so."

The picture of the Antarctic is far fuzzier....But the continent is also losing ice from its edges as warmer water causes ice shelf collapse. There is a chance that this ice outflow could cause runaway collapse of the entire western Antarctic ice sheet. This could add several tenths of a meter to global sea level rise by 2100.

"Other reports, notes Rahmstorf, including a 2012 assessment by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, give more pessimistic sea level predictions, going up to 2 meters by 2100."

"The last time the planet was steadily 2 degrees C warmer than pre-industrial times, some 120,000 years ago, sea levels were 5 to 10 meters higher than today. It’s likely we’ll hit 2 degrees C of warming by 2100, unless we take extreme measures to mitigate emissions"

"The U.S. East Coast has another problem too: Climate change is weakening the Gulf Stream current, and that is allowing water to slop back towards shore. Overall, the U.S. East Coast is seeing rates of sea level rise that are 3 to 4 times the global average."

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/rising_waters_how_fast_and_how_far_will_sea_levels_rise/2702/

 

That's strange, since every unusual weather event I see getting reported in the news is instantly seized upon by MMGW believers as "proof" of the infallibility of their religion.

 

I have not seen anyone deny that the climate changes.
Climate alarmists claim that man is causing it to change.

 

People who look at things critically and rationally are only a problem to believers who can't formulate a well sourced logical argument.

The problem is what is "long term". Depending on the period you are interested in and whether or not you choose a linear fit or something more complex the trend is either for warmer, cooler, or no change.. Furthermore given the amount of noise in most such fits it's not clear whether the "trend" is real or not.

The of course there's the problem that some have gone well beyond theorizing that the climate is changeing to the point where they are saying that anthropomorphic CO2 is the primary cause of said climate change. Given the repeated failure of thier models to produce accurate predictions their is very legitimate question as to the accuracy of their hypothesis.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-10/no-named-storms-first-time-since-1992-at-hurricane-peak.html

 

The News of any particular event is one thing, the results of scientific research another.

Please change word "climate" in that quote to "climate change significantly caused by man".

And then there are people whose hobby is endless hairsplitting on every pointless detail...

The man made climate change is admitedly a good target, because nothing can't be said with 100 % certainty unless it has actually happened. Still, the big picture is clear to anyone not in love with conspiracy theories.

Long term = e.g. until 2100.