The One and Only Climate Change thread...

[Paul Beckwith]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

You are correct; a single event is "weather" and not "climate". Included in "weather" is the record daily high temperatures seen in many US cities over the last several weeks. Ditto with the record high in Moscow, and the record high "daily lows" obtained in many places around the world (i.e. smaller daily or diurnal temperature variation). Also with the massive rainfall events seen lately; including the flooding of Nashville a month ago; the collapse of a dam near Cedar Rapids, Iowa on the weekend after 10 inches of rain in one day, and rainfall recently in Chicago and other places reaching almost a foot within a day or so. Also, there have been record low temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere winter in places like Argentina.

All the above is weather. However, the bigger picture (climate) seems to indicate that there are more extremes in highs/lows/rainfall events/etc. occurring around the globe. Climate is really the big picture, whether it be over time (trends over time), or over the globe (i.e spatial trends at one given time). Records being broken in a few locations is one thing, but when there are strong patterns around the world (over and over again in time) that is quite another thing (climate).

Hope that this helps.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Hi Paul:

Good and understandable explanation. Thanks.

What do the naysayers have to respond to this?

Bob

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Sorry, I am too focused on chess to deal with this nonsense now. I have not seen any key deniers change their position so those survey results are probably achieved by defining anyone who disagrees as not being a climate scientist.

As for the whitewash inquiries into climategate I am entirely unsurprised at the results since there is too much money to be made if they can rush through their agenda. The objectivity and desire to get at the truth of each of the inquiries is open to question. The thing is, in the court of public opinion, in the United States cap and trade is dead. It will be even deader after the November elections. HTH.

It is interesting that all these stories about former Saint Al Gore start coming out after he defies Obama. Moral of the story is don't mess with a Chicago politician. Of course he (Al) is getting nervous about where his next billion will come from now that his agenda is stalled and the late night massage therapists seem to contradict his hopes for a "happy ending".

[Paul Beckwith]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Bob,

Amazing, it did not take long for the riff-raff to come out of the woodwork. Notice the contrast between Vlad's email and my previous response to you. I had a rationale, logical response and he was just blowing smoke out of his nether regions.

Regards,
Paul

[Bob Armstrong]

One Naysayer's ( Vlad ) Position?

Hi Paul:

Since I'm in to getting explanations from you, what do you understand to be Vlad's position:

1. There is no global warming?
2. There is currently global warming, but it is just part of an up and down natural cycle over the eons?
3. There is global warming ( it's the hottest it's ever been ), but it is all from natural causes?
4. There is global warming, but it is mostly from natural causes, and man's contribution to it is relatively insignificant?
5. None of the above ? ( then what is his position ? )

Any help to understand Vlad's position would be appreciated. Maybe Vlad could chime in here himself and give me the short thesis he holds on this issue.

Bob

[Adam Cormier]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Sorry, I am too focused on chess to deal with this nonsense now. I have not seen any key deniers change their position so those survey results are probably achieved by defining anyone who disagrees as not being a climate scientist.

As for the whitewash inquiries into climategate I am entirely unsurprised at the results since there is too much money to be made if they can rush through their agenda. The objectivity and desire to get at the truth of each of the inquiries is open to question. The thing is, in the court of public opinion, in the United States cap and trade is dead. It will be even deader after the November elections. HTH.

It is interesting that all these stories about former Saint Al Gore start coming out after he defies Obama. Moral of the story is don't mess with a Chicago politician. Of course he (Al) is getting nervous about where his next billion will come from now that his agenda is stalled and the late night massage therapists seem to contradict his hopes for a "happy ending".

Come on...you always talk about how you can't trust Climatologists because they are getting too much money for it or have a secret motive/agenda. Al Gore, I would agree is in for financial opportunities as much as trying to help the environment. He is a joke anyways and his film has several inaccuracies as far as I know. But do you honestly believe every single scientists that supports anthropogenic global warming is only doing it for the money and to push their own agenda? None of them have seen the evidence and thought to themselves we should do something about this problem? You have so little trust in the scientific community and science in general (unless it is your science). What has the scientific community ever done to make you not trust them? Science changes alot, but it is always to improve and currently the mainstream position by the scientific community is that global warming is a problem, humans are playing a major role in this and we should try to find ways to combat this.

and Good luck in the Ontario Open (do you know if the games will be available on monroi.com or another website).

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Bob,

Amazing, it did not take long for the riff-raff to come out of the woodwork. Notice the contrast between Vlad's email and my previous response to you. I had a rationale, logical response and he was just blowing smoke out of his nether regions.

Regards,
Paul

Riff raff? It appears that you have some issues with dissenting opinions. One man's rational, logical response is another man's smoke blowing out of nether regions. Climate "science" as revealed in the climategate emails is a joke. The rush to exonerate the guilty and continue the gravy train does nothing to dispel that conclusion.

The Al Gore story is interesting in that it is the Dems that are torpedoing him. When he was doing Obama's work demanding that random late night massages include some extracurricular activity was not an issue. Now that he has offended "The One" his life has become a throw away line from an Avril Lavigne song, "So much for my happy ending,..."

[Bob Armstrong]

Vlad's Position?

Hi Vlad:

You responded to one of Paul Beckwith's recent posts. Could you also respond to my post above ( July 27 - 2:47 AM ) so I get clear your position in all this? Thanks.

Bob

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: One Naysayer's ( Vlad ) Position?

1. There is no global warming?

I'm not sure. We have to do some scientific enquiry without discarding the raw data and cherry picking the results to give us what we want before we can be sure.

2. There is currently global warming, but it is just part of an up and down natural cycle over the eons?

Possibly. Unfudged research with no adjustments to skew the results is required.

3. There is global warming ( it's the hottest it's ever been ), but it is all from natural causes?

I disagree that its the hottest that it has ever been. It has been a lot hotter at many times in the past.

4. There is global warming, but it is mostly from natural causes, and man's contribution to it is relatively insignificant?

If I had to hazard a guess this would be mine assuming that there has been global warming. The fact that most of the planets have warmed up without any man-made build up of carbon dioxide would suggest that it is the sun and possibly on Earth at least the normal warming after an ice age which is responsible for most if not all of any warming trend.

You should pray that I am right since cap and trade will not come to North America any time soon. Global carbon dioxide emissions will go up in China, India, North America and Europe and world wide. There will be no great redistribution of wealth since America is broke and Canada is not in the mood to enrich some corrupt third world countries based on the new doctrine of carbon guilt. If man made CO2 is the main culprit get used to it because there is going to be a lot more of it.

Even Al Gore who claimed that sea levels would rise catastrophically was busy buying waterfront property. If he really believed his spew why would he buy property that he believed would be flooded. That doesn't make sense.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: One Naysayer's ( Vlad ) Position?

You should pray that I am right since cap and trade will not come to North America any time soon.

Last I heard B.C. is in North America and the majority Liberal government here annouced a cap and trade plan for carbon emmisions today.

And of course we've already used cap and trade to deal with CFC's around twenty years ago. Worked reasonably well, too.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Come on...you always talk about how you can't trust Climatologists because they are getting too much money for it or have a secret motive/agenda. Al Gore, I would agree is in for financial opportunities as much as trying to help the environment. He is a joke anyways and his film has several inaccuracies as far as I know. But do you honestly believe every single scientists that supports anthropogenic global warming is only doing it for the money and to push their own agenda? None of them have seen the evidence and thought to themselves we should do something about this problem? You have so little trust in the scientific community and science in general (unless it is your science). What has the scientific community ever done to make you not trust them? Science changes alot, but it is always to improve and currently the mainstream position by the scientific community is that global warming is a problem, humans are playing a major role in this and we should try to find ways to combat this.

and Good luck in the Ontario Open (do you know if the games will be available on monroi.com or another website).

I don't believe that every single scientist that believes in global warming is corrupt but some of them clearly are. The day that the man made global warming hypothesis is falsified is the day that much of the funding for this research dries up.

The history of science is one of wrong ideas being supplanted eventually with paradigms that more closely approximate the truth. In the past, the so called consensus has invariably been wrong.

It is the Ontario Closed but thanks for the good wishes. Good luck in the Amateur if you are playing.

I am not sure on whether there will be Monroi devices in use. I will be using mine in stand alone mode at the very least. I know that Patrick McDonald has a number of them but doesn't always run them. Hopefully I get the chance to do some chess in the next three days as I have been helping people with computer problems in my off time which is the same thing that I do all day.

I did finish off a local tournament yesterday but playing is not the same as preparing.

[Bob Armstrong]

One Layman's ( My ) Position

Hi Vlad:

Thanks.

I am merely an observer in this debate, and have not delved into the source documents on this issue. So as a layman, here is the best I have been able to come up with ( based on the second hand information of lively debate by those more enmeshed in the issue ):

1. The earth has gone through global warming and global cooling cycles over the eons.
( I suspect Vlad is right, that the earth some times in the past, has actually been hotter than now ).
2. However, there is strong evidence that since the last global cooling period ( the last Ice Age ), we are in a steady global warming cycle again.
3. Some of the global warming we are experiencing in this current cycle is from natural causes ( Vlad's evidence that other planets have been warming as well, where there is no man-made influence on climate ).
4. Man-made gases on earth are a significant contributor to our current global warming cycle - CO2 in the atmospere and in the oceans mainly.
5. The consequences to life on earth are dramatic and detrimental from global warming, if not eventually fatal to man. So we must try to slow the cycle down re what we have control over - the production of man-made emission of global warming gases.
6. We can hope that in future, we may discover some methods of also slowing down at least some of the natural causes of global warming.

I guess that puts this layman into the global warming " advocates " camp. This is the way I see it at the moment, and I will continue to listen to the debate by those more knowledgeable.

I'd be pleased to receive any comments on my evolving position.

Bob

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: One Layman's ( My ) Position

[QUOTE=Bob Armstrong;27129]Hi Vlad:

Thanks.

I am merely an observer in this debate, and have not delved into the source documents on this issue. So as a layman, here is the best I have been able to come up with ( based on the second hand information of lively debate by those more enmeshed in the issue ):

4. Man-made gases on earth are a significant contributor to our current global warming cycle - CO2 in the atmospere and in the oceans mainly.

The most significant greenhouse gas is water vapour.

5. The consequences to life on earth are dramatic and detrimental from global warming, if not eventually fatal to man.

Bob, this is just not so. Anyone who studies biology knows that as temperatures increase so does biodiversity and biomass. Warmer temperatures means more living organisms, plants, animals and microorganisms.

So we must try to slow the cycle down re what we have control over - the production of man-made emission of global warming gases.

The amounts and costs that are being proposed to tackle global warming would go a long way towards solving the more pressing problems of humankind.

6. We can hope that in future, we may discover some methods of also slowing down at least some of the natural causes of global warming.

The Freakanomics guys have proposed an inexpensive way to counteract global warming if that is really such a problem. I wouldn't advocate that as cooling seems more dangerous for humans than warming in any case.

I guess that puts this layman into the global warming " advocates " camp. This is the way I see it at the moment, and I will continue to listen to the debate by those more knowledgeable.

I'd be pleased to receive any comments on my evolving position.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: One Layman's ( My ) Position

Hi Vlad:

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

I'd be glad to hear what any " gw advocates " have to say about Vlad's reply to parts of my position.

Bob

[Ernest Klubis]

Re: One Layman's ( My ) Position

5. The consequences to life on earth are dramatic and detrimental from global warming, if not eventually fatal to man.

Bob, this is just not so. Anyone who studies biology knows that as temperatures increase so does biodiversity and biomass. Warmer temperatures means more living organisms, plants, animals and microorganisms.

Moreover, warmer temperatures increase agriculture production and creates more land for cultivating food products! On another hand, cold weather results in real death as reported here:A spell of extreme cold weather has brought ice and snow to much of Argentina, killing at least nine.

Most of the victims were homeless people in the capital Buenos Aires who died of hypothermia, a local non-governmental organisation said.

The cold front moving up from Antarctica has caused temperatures to plunge across the southern cone region of South America.

Deaths have also been reported in Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia.

"The wave of cold air from the polar region continues to affect all of Argentina's territory with intense frosts" Argentina's national meteorological service reported.

It recorded minimum temperatures of minus 14C in Patagonia and central Argentina and between 0C and 3C in the north.

Argentina has stepped up electricity imports from Brazil and put restrictions on the use of natural gas by industry to ensure the increased energy demand for domestic heating can be met.

The cold snap also hit Bolivia, where local media reported at least two deaths in the tropical region of Santa Cruz.

Bolivia's education ministry ordered schools to close until 21 July because of the cold.

Low temperatures have also affected Chile, southern Brazil, and eastern Peru.

The unusually cold winter weather in South America follows one of the coldest winters for years in many parts of the northern hemisphere.

Antarctic cold snap kills nine in Argentina