AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (24 comments)

  1. Average Monthly Arctic Sea Ice Extent August 1979-2013

    It was the 6th lowest in the 1979-203 satellite record.

    1. morganovich

      http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png

      antarctic sea ice, on the other hand, was at record levels for the satellite period and is roughly 2 standard deviations above the average since 1980.

      1. SHHH! How can we continue to defend this worn out Global Warming meme if you bring up such inconvenient facts?

        1. Benjamin Cole

          Ron H.—You used the word “meme.” What next? Quiche, white wine and Sausalito art markets?

          1. Hilarious. Ron never heard of labor specialization. There are climate scientists and there is Ron, a specialist in everything with his art history degree.

          2. morganovich

            marmico-

            nice appeal to false authority.

            we have phrenologists too. shall we also accede to their authority?

            their track record, while poor, is considerably better than that of climate scientists…

            a science is gauged not by credentials or consensus but by the ability to make meaningful predictions that prove to be accurate.

            by that standard, climate science might as well be magic 8 ballollogy.

          3. Hilarious. Ron never heard of labor specialization. There are climate scientists and there is Ron, a specialist in everything with his art history degree.

            marmico, if your comment was some kind of an objection to my ridicule of those who still cling to the failed religion of global warming, you have missed the mark.

        2. Quit blowing smoke. How’s your “boyfriend” this morning?

          1. morganovich

            marmico-

            was that even intended to make sense?

            the last time you leveled accusation of “blowing smoke” it was because you were making a 7th grade math error.

            this time it would appear to be because you are unfamiliar with actual climate science and like to argue by logical fallacy.

            so, for my own future reference, would it be safe to assume that when you say “quit blowing smoke” what you mean is “i have no substantive argument and would prefer to hide behind personal attacks”?

            the evidence on that is becoming quite convincing, but i thought i might as well ask you as well.

            and, out of morbid curiosity, who is this alleged “boyfriend” of mine?

            is that intended as some form of baseless anti gay slur or is there some referent there i am supposed to understand?

          2. Quit blowing smoke. How’s your “boyfriend” this morning?

            A new subject! Have you given up already on sea ice and global warming?

  2. I predict that some enviro whacko (a la Al Gore) will take it upon himself/herself to do whatever he/she can to FORCE nature to AGREE with the Global Warming Predictions (after all, Nature is Supposed to Follow the diktats of elitists who know everything)

    Just like the enviro whackos destroyed yellow rice (rice with Vitamin A), I anticipate enviro whackos figuring out ways to melt all that extra ice – and they will do that with Grants Funded by the US Federal Government.

    1. Krishnan

      The algore has his own unique method.

        1. Heh! That’s about what it’s come to.

    2. morganovich

      krishnan-

      actually, one could make a case than man is already melting that ice.

      they are not doing it with co2 however, they are doing it with black soot, largely a result of Chinese coal plants having lousy scrubbers and dirty diesel engines.

      if you put black soot on white ice, it absorbs more heat (lower albedo).

      this may go a significant way toward explaining why the arctic ice and Antarctic ice extents have been heading in different directions.

  3. An inconvenient truth – Global Cooling

    No surprise here. Whether climate change means warming or cooling. Either way it’s sort of like the stock market – nothing goes straight up or straight down. Short-term changes can be quite meaningless. In either case it’s best not to take the media into account. There will always be someone justifying what’s happening at any given time. I have not really seen much truth in popular media. It’s seems best to be patient and watch the long term trends.

    Predictions about climate warming always seem to be worst case scenarios. Yes, the earth has been warming for quite some time – about 20,000 years and has been relatively stable for the past 10,000 years. And we have survived and should continue to do so as the earth resumes its temperature rise. It should cause problems for some humans and pain for others. We will have to make adjustments as we go. I suspect the rise in temperatures should be a lot more gradual than is currently being bandied about. We should survive.

    Climate cooling however, if and when it finally occurs, could be quite swift and devastating, hopefully no time soon.

    1. morganovich

      “Yes, the earth has been warming for quite some time – about 20,000 years and has been relatively stable for the past 10,000 years.”

      this is actually not true.

      the earth warmed a great deal coming out of the last ice age, but it has been cooling for 7000 years.

      the holocence climate optimum was much, much warmer than today (3-4 degrees).

      since then, things have cooled. the minoan period was cooler, the roman cooler still (but still 2 degrees hotter than today) the medieval period was likewise about a half a degree cooler than the roman period and the current period is about 1.5 degrees colder than the 1300′s.

      notions that we are in a “warming” trend can only be supported by using very recent data.

      since 1850, sure, the earth has warmed, but that was also the coldest period for 9000 years. they did not call it “the little ice age” for no reason.

      so sure, we have recovered somewhat from the LIA (largely attributed to low solar activity, maunder minumum, dalton minumum, etc) but we have also not broken the long term (7000 year) downtrend nor are we likely to.

  4. Oh come one, Mark. I come here for facts, not distortions. You disappoint me when you peddle this deliberately misleading interpretation.

    http://americablog.com/2013/05/how-climate-change-denial-works.html

    1. morganovich

      andrew-

      that is an absurd and kindergarten level critique.

      for agw to be a problem, 3 things absolutely must be true:

      1. the world must be warming.

      2. man must be causing it.

      3. this must be a bad thing.

      not a single one of these can be proven except in some very limited time-frames.

      the earth is VERY cold right now. temperatures are in the bottom 5-10% of all historical temps since multi cellular life evolved 500 million years ago.

      they are also very cold relative to medeival, roman, minoan, of holocence climate optimum temps.

      we are at the bottom end of a 500 million range and in a 7000 year downtrend.

      only by cherry picking and anchoring the data in the little ice age caused by a quiet sun can we get a warming trend, but that’s just a recovery from the dramatic cooling from 1350 to 1800.

      for the last 15 to 18 years, there has been no warming.

      all the climate models failed. we have more co2 that their worst case scenarios and less warming that their best case, which was predicated on co2 dropping.

      these models are trash and based on bad assumptions.

      svensmark’s work has largely disproven the whole basis for agw’s assumptions about co2 forcing and feedback.

      turns out the sun has more than one pathway to affect temperatures. it’s not just radiant output, it’s also solar wind blocking high atmospheric ionization which leads to high cloud cover and a less solar energy reaching the surface.

      the negative inference model of “we cannot explain x so it must be man” was never valid, but this has destroyed its claims.

      there is not even a credible case that warm is bad. the roman period was 2 degrees warmer than now and a thriving time. the dark ages came in when got cold.

      a return to 1850 temperatures and growing season length would starve billions.

      so please, spare us the “i read the newspaper” level analysis.

      the site you link to is a bunch of cherry picked nonsense looking at very short term data and worse, using the NOAA data which has been monstrously mishandles, is based on a network that has less that 20% of its site cited according to its own guidelines, and still has to cheat and modify the data by making the past colder to get the result they want.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/

      here’s a graph leaked from the forthcoming ipcc ar5.

      note that temps have not risen since 1998 and that current temps are outside the low predictions from all the key models.

      with the pdo in cold mode and the sun looking unusually quiescent and impending solar cycles matching up to past patterns associated with lower activity, the better bet is that the world will be colder in 20 years, not warmer.

      1. Oh dear. A fulmination. How unfortunate. I do apologise. I thought this site was about evidence and facts. I’ve got all the time in the world for sceptics, but I’ve had enough of the ideological warriors on both sides. Kindergarten, indeed.

        1. Oh dear. A fulmination. How unfortunate. I do apologise. I thought this site was about evidence and facts. I’ve got all the time in the world for sceptics, but I’ve had enough of the ideological warriors on both sides. Kindergarten, indeed.

          Was there a point in there somewhere?

          I don’t believe anyone much cares what you have time for, or what you’ve had enough of.

          Was there some specific point in morganovich’s comment you had a problem with?

          1. Only the unsubstantiated ones. But never mind. I thought I was among people who sought the truth, not those who know everything. I’ve already got three teenagers to do that for me.

          2. Based on your silly comments so far, it seems unlikely you have any idea what the truth is, and have nothing to offer here.

          3. Oh and I suppose that these ad hominem attacks are what passes for the truth here.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content