[Zipperfish]

Dryad Dryad:

Is the problem that people in general have enough time to blog a little but not enough time to read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 4th report, Climate Change 2007, most of which is available, including policy summaries, online by just typing in IPCC?

No, I'm convinced now what folks have been trying to hammer into my head all along. This isn't science, it's politics. Science, which talks in a soft voice, cannot compete with the screaming rhetoric from both sides. I guess people aren't raitonal beings though. Maybe we are fundamentally ideological for all our pretensions to intelligence and logic. If we observe something that we cannot reconciliate with our ideology, we simply discard the observation, not change the ideology. The right sees any mitigation of climate change as a fundamentally socailist endeavour, so they simply block it out--it doesn't exist. The left is ready to scarifice the economy of the planet to eal with it. Anyone in the middle is caught in the crossfire, and nothing happens except people get more entrenched in their positions, and science and society as a whole suffer.

It's a shame.

--30--

[sasquatch2]

That was a remarkably, accurate synopsis. Congratulations are in order.

As you said

$1:

The right sees any mitigation of climate change as a fundamentally socailist endeavour, so they simply block it out--it doesn't exist. The left is ready to scarifice the economy of the planet to (d)eal with it.

I cannot speak for the right, but my position is that any observed climate change is beyond our control. For how long I cannot say. The situation in India/China could reach a tipping point----but it will not be CO2. Sad things are happening to the tropical rain-forests.

I have witnessed forested hills in Africa (extinct volcanos) which once were mini-rainforests and produced small streams from the cloud forests-----stripped bare to provide fire-wood and material for shamba's-----now abandoned dry knobs. It's not always the bull-dozer and the chainsaw.......an infinite number of locals with machetees and axes........that is anthropogenic climate change.

This CO2 BS is a very sad distraction from the real problems.

[ziggy]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Dryad Dryad:

Is the problem that people in general have enough time to blog a little but not enough time to read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 4th report, Climate Change 2007, most of which is available, including policy summaries, online by just typing in IPCC?

No, I'm convinced now what folks have been trying to hammer into my head all along. This isn't science, it's politics. Science, which talks in a soft voice, cannot compete with the screaming rhetoric from both sides. I guess people aren't raitonal beings though. Maybe we are fundamentally ideological for all our pretensions to intelligence and logic. If we observe something that we cannot reconciliate with our ideology, we simply discard the observation, not change the ideology. The right sees any mitigation of climate change as a fundamentally socailist endeavour, so they simply block it out--it doesn't exist. The left is ready to scarifice the economy of the planet to eal with it. Anyone in the middle is caught in the crossfire, and nothing happens except people get more entrenched in their positions, and science and society as a whole suffer.

It's a shame.

--30--

Thats right,it's mostly agenda driven politics that make up peoples minds on global warming and what to do about it.You dont know how true this statement is

$1:

One such loop would be where ice caps are melting, leaving dark water that does not reflect the sun like the snow

as an example just small amounts of dirt on an ice road will melt it a month early.Yet when the tundra is devoid of snow it still reflects the sunshine and can be seen as the heat waves rise off the tundra.

Plus anything under the water will remain frozen,thats what keeps the permafrost frozen in the summer,the water.

It would take a significant rise in temperatures for permafrost to start melting more than a few inch's a year.Core drill samples at my site show permafrost at a depth of 27 feet,in Russia it go's as deep as 5000 feet.That would take millions of years to thaw and would need warmer temps for thousands of years for this to happen.Like I pointed out before,once you put water on top of permafrost you have just insulated it from anymore thawing.Most meltwater in The Arctic never gets above plus 2 celsius.

So once again I never have said the globe isnt warming or we havent contributed to it,just that what the alarmists are saying is mostly bullshit.But then again they have an agenda and I dont.I can early retire starting next year,couldnt give a shit about who is paying who to say what to the masses.
Your a scientist with an open mind Zip,thats why I allways try and read what you write.Some of the armchair qb's have posted links(I wont mention any names) and they were from govt. sites and were bullshit(a forest near Baker lake?)so now I dont trust most sources.It surprised me when I read a few links off environment Canada's site,but it's cold up there,I can see someone foregoing the heli ride to a remote weather station and making shit up just so they can stay at the hotel.Cant say I blame them.Too bad these are the guys that people use to quote info from.

Going through the guts of a mountain for 22 years doesnt make me an expert on climate change,but I did see with my own eyes every single sedimentary layer that was laid down for the last few millions of years up close and personal.Every volcanic eruption(including Mt. St. Helens many eruptions)every ice age,when it was tropical,when it was dry,meteor impacts which show up as small stringers of dust as the sun was blacked out and things died for a few million years,I've seen all this shit with my own eyes.So forgive me if I call bullshit on this whole argument,no ones even brought up El Nino and the other ocean currents that have changed the weather for millions of years.


When you get time to read my link you will see the author was a skeptic at first,it's a good read,when peoples minds can be changed then thats a good thing.Their speaking from the heart then,

Later Zip,off to the north for a bit.

[sasquatch2]

Zipperfish an open minded scientist?

This is the guy who keeps referring to "the consensus".

At least, by using his own methods we have had him now conceed the role of the sun in any climate change and the whole matter is political. That's a start.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

OK, so we are back to square one--denying that warming is even taking place.

We're back there because you insist on putting us there. You keep insisting I'm saying things haven't gotten warmer than they were when they were colder. I keep insisting it's not.

I'll try my summertime analogy again. See if that works. In Canada it gets warmer in the Summertime than it does in the winter. Nobody would ever say that's not the case. The sun gets closer. Everything melts. The sun gets farther away. Everything freezes up again. It's all natural and to be expected.

OK, so back to Global warming. There are larger cycles. Nobody is disputing that. There are ice ages, then the ice melts. Recently Kenji Kawamura returned from the Antarctic and produced hard, physical evidence to support...

$1:

A premise advanced in the 1940s known as the Milankovitch theory, named after the Serbian geophysicist Milutin Milankovitch, (which) proposed that ice ages start and end in connection with changes in summer insolation, or exposure to sunlight, in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. To test it, Kawamura used ice core samples taken thousands of miles to the south in Antarctica at a station known as Dome Fuji.

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/scienc ... gerRM-.asp

What he's saying is his research...

$1:

shows that the last four great ice age cycles began when Earth’s distance from the sun during its annual orbit became great enough to prevent summertime melts of glacial ice. The absence of those melts allowed buildups of the ice over periods of time that would become characterized as glacial periods.

So it's cyclical. It's cold, then it's warm, then it's cold again. Just as summer and winter are determined by proximity to the sun so too are longer cycles of ice ages to warming.

What I'm saying is if you are saying something unexpected, or never seen before is happening in that cycle show me. Continuing to produce data showing me Summer is hotter than Winter - so to speak - is silly.

Edit

I'd like to make something clear though. I am not saying proximity to the sun is the only factor governing climate. I'm simply saying heating and warming is cyclical.

[sasquatch2]

What is silly is to continue support of a thoroughly discredited political cause.

The evidence to support that cause "the science" has been exposed as fabrications.

That is silly.

[N_Fiddledog]

In fact Zip I'll show you the argument I'm waiting for you to post, because I still don't think you get it.

$1:

Legend 4 - Global warming is all part of natural variability; the climate is always changing.

* The only way to assess whether the recently observed warming fits with a pattern of natural variability is to look at how temperature has varied in the past. This can be done using paleoclimatic evidence from tree rings, glaciers, corals, and other geologic records. Figure 2 shows several different reconstructions of temperature for the past two thousand years with the instrumental record shown in black. It is clear that the magnitude and rate of change over the past century far exceeds any natural variation that occurred in the past two millennia.

* While there have been large variations in climate over the course of Earth history, paleoclimatic evidence can often tie these to specific changes in climate forcings, such as variations in Earth orbit or changes in atmospheric composition. Once variations resulting from known external forcings are removed, the magnitude of natural fluctuations from the chaotic variability inherent to the climate system appears to be significantly smaller than changes in global average temperature over the past century, suggesting that this change is a response to forcing from increased greenhouse gas concentrations caused by humans rather than a simple internal oscillation.

http://www.climate.org/topics/climate/d ... yths.shtml

Do you see the difference between what you're saying, and what they're saying? There not just saying things are warmer. They're saying this particular warming is remarkable.

Do you get it now? Now we know "What warming?" as far as the suggested, unexpected warming the AGW movement is talking about. Now we have a starting point for discussion.

[ziggy]

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

Zipperfish an open minded scientist?

This is the guy who keeps referring to "the consensus".

At least, by using his own methods we have had him now conceed the role of the sun in any climate change and the whole matter is political. That's a start.

I've known Zip for a few years and have seen him change his mind and stance on a few things.

So ya I think he's open minded.

[Zipperfish]

ziggy ziggy:

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

Zipperfish an open minded scientist?

This is the guy who keeps referring to "the consensus".

At least, by using his own methods we have had him now conceed the role of the sun in any climate change and the whole matter is political. That's a start.

I've known Zip for a few years and have seen him change his mind and stance on a few things.

So ya I think he's open minded.

Thanks Ziggy. Changed my mind about them palooza pants, didn't I?