Climate Change

Wake Up, Freak Out, Save the Planet

By RTH Staff
Published September 09, 2008

Leo Murray from the British Royal College of Art has produced an elegant, informative movie that does a great job of explaining climate change tipping points the serious threat of runaway global warming.

The movie, titled, "Wake Up, Freak Out - then Get a Grip", is thoroughly documented and beautifully animated.

Murray concludes, "This is not the time to panic, or to despair. This the time to act - while we still can."

36 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted September 09, 2008 at 20:58:42

This is actually the time to start mocking the global warming fanatics. You have all chosen to put your faith in computer models, and the universe is now showing you who is boss. The universe does what it wants, when it wants, and this means includes counteracting what humans are predicting, or are otherwise trying to accomplish.

Newton's third law explains how this happens..."For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." This simply means that everything we do, say, or think, is counteracted by the universe. Therefore, when people start predicting "x" to happen, the universe begins working on doing the complete opposite. That is why ANY long term predictions that humans make, always turn out to be wrong. This is simply the way the universe has been designed, to keep us guessing.

How many more summers with moderate temperatures do we need before you just admit your complete ignorance? Global Warming is a fad, and you should all feel embarrassed for being duped by your political masters.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Scientist (anonymous) | Posted September 09, 2008 at 21:25:03

Sorry Smith but I've just got to call BS on your comment. You've mixed up mystical pantheism (ooh, the universe chooses to thwart our plans!) with a lay reading of Newtonian mathematics that is, to put it bluntly, flat-out wrong.

ALL of science is making models and then testing our models against observation and experiment to see if the empirical data match the prediction. In complex systems like the climate, computers help us to model lots of mutually interacting factors more accurately because there's just too much going on to capture it all without a computer.

If you refuse to accept modeling in climatology, why do you accept modeling in Newtonian mechanics (even though you clearly don't understand it)?

Also, "How many more summers with moderate temperatures do we need before you just admit your complete ignorance?" Last summer was one of the hottest on record. This summer was an outlier granted, but trends in complex systems run longer than just a year or two. All you've demonstrated in your comment is you're own ignorance of how science works.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ted Mitchell (registered) | Posted September 09, 2008 at 21:38:04

Poor Newton.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted September 10, 2008 at 00:04:54

I am not against computer models, I just don't think the track record of climate forecasting is strong enough to support the claims being put forward as sacrosanct.

A few decades ago we were all going to freeze to death, and now the opposite is true. If scientists were wrong initially, why should we believe them now? Much of the recent data
actually contradicts what the models have been predicting, and yet the hysteria continues unabated. In fact, the more fear is whipped up regarding this issue, the less likely it appears to be even a small concern.

Furthermore, I never said the universe wants to mess up our plans, I said that the universe balances our all of intentions and actions. This phenomenon is also known as unintended consequences, karma, and is a primary part of most religions in the world today.

An example of this balancing mechanism in the universe can be seen in Africa. As rich countries have tried to help the continent over recent decades, the standard of living has dropped, not risen. The exact opposite intended effect has taken place, and yet the world continues doing the same thing, hoping to get different results.

Another example of this balance can be seen in the issue of tax rates. Since Ronald Reagan began cutting the top marginal tax rate in 1982, the percentage of money paid to the government by the top 1% has risen from 19.03% to about 40%. Conversely, taxes paid by the bottom 50% has dropped from 7% to less than 3%. Rather than getting less money from the rich, the complete opposite effect has occurred, the government has gotten more.

When Hamilton goes a whole winter without snow, then maybe I will start believing what the climate models are predicting. Until then, it's all just a lot of noise.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By BE (anonymous) | Posted September 10, 2008 at 09:16:53

Zombie Newton MAD!!!!!
...
Zombie Newton SMASH!!!!

Zombie Newton angry at misrepresentation of basic physics and scientific principals by ignorant troll!!!!!

RAAAAAARRGGHGHGHGGH

Zombie Newton return to grave now... have 2:30 chess game with Prof. Werner Heisenberg.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Zombie Schroedinger (anonymous) | Posted September 10, 2008 at 09:31:04

"Zombie Newton return to grave now... have 2:30 chess game with Prof. Werner Heisenberg."

Why bother? You can't even find out who won. Observing the game changes the outcome.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By BE (anonymous) | Posted September 10, 2008 at 10:13:41

Nice!

I'm glad someone got the Heisenberg joke, it's a pretty obscure physics reference to most people.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ted Mitchell (registered) | Posted September 10, 2008 at 14:21:06

foclol!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Zombie Hugh Everett (anonymous) | Posted September 10, 2008 at 15:11:19

"foclol!"

In this universe, maybe. In a parallel universe, you stayed on the chair.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted September 10, 2008 at 18:41:14

BE, just because your sacred Global Warming theory is beginning to unravel, doesn't mean you have to resort to sad attempts at humour . Why not try defending your position using ideas, instead of acting like a child? Unless of course you now realize you've chosen the wrong people to be submissive to, and are now feeling violated.

I understand that people like yourself feel more comfortable in a world where you are told what to do, and believe, but try thinking for yourself now and again. I know you can do it, keep trying little fellow.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By BE (anonymous) | Posted September 10, 2008 at 19:21:23

Oh I don't know... Ted Mitchell got a good laugh.

What can I say... are the next 3 sentences I type going to change your opinion about climate change? Are the next 300? I doubt it.

I've read a huge number of studies and opinion pieces on the subject, studied it in University. I can only assume that you also have done your research and come up with the exact opposite opinion on the subject. Nothing I say will change that, I'm just some tool on the interweb.

All I can do is mock your obviously tenuous grasp of physics and reality.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted September 10, 2008 at 20:37:37

To tell you the truth, I have no idea what the long term trend in our climate is. I do know, however, that human beings have a great track record of being wrong when making long term predictions.

I used Newton's third law of physics to illustrate the point that human actions and intentions do not operate in a vacuum. Whatever humans attempt to accomplish, there are always unexpected side effects. These side effects almost always surprise people, and yet they happen consistently.

A great example of this is the tax system. As top marginal rates have dropped, actual taxes paid by the rich has increased as a share of total taxes. I doubt most people understand that this has happened, since it is counterintuitive.

The fact is, human beings tend to think of only cause and effect, whereas in the real world there are also secondary effects, tertiary effects and so on.

Therefore, with regard to climate change, scientists tabulate the actions of human beings, and they come up with a probable result. This is where the story ends for them.

The problem is that the very result that the scientists come up with will now become a cause in and of itself. It will go on to effect the climate as well, and likely in the opposite direction to the predicted result.

The world tends to work like a pendulum, constantly going back and forth between positive and negative, male and female, light and dark. Therefore, when the experts predict negative results, this very action will act as a cause that will produce effects. These effects will be in the opposite direction to what the cause predicted in the first place.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By peter (anonymous) | Posted September 10, 2008 at 21:54:48

^troll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

have you noticed the polar ice caps melting? nah, i guess you haven't. the earth is changing, friend, whether you like it or not.

you're just confused because giving a damn about the planet doesn't fit into your economic ideology. poor, poor troll.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Scientist (anonymous) | Posted September 10, 2008 at 22:06:10

Whatever, you clearly have no idea how science works (just like you have no idea what Newton's Third Law actually means). You don't think scientists understand secondary, tertiary etc. effects? That's what a complex system IS, its why they need computers to help them model this stuff. Its what this documentary movie is about (which BTW is quite well done even though it's by an arts guy), the secondary and tertiary effects of global warming, like thawing Siberian permafrost and reduced albedo from melting ice and such.

See, STABLE systems are marked by negative feedback loops, what you're clumsily trying to describe with your inept and inappropriate analogy to Newton's 3rd. Changes are self-limiting because they produce an effect that tends to reduce the change.

With global warming, we're looking at what happens when systems become UNSTABLE. Suddenly negative feedback loops don't work any more and we get dramatic runaway effects like the permafrost melt. Scientists aren't saying "X, Y, Z is going to happen" all neatly tied in a ribbon. They're saying "When this and that tipping point is reached all bets are off - the system becomes chaotic."

If anything, the models they made in the past UNDERESTIMATED just how chaotic things will get as we reach these tipping points in positive feedback loops. It's actually worse, things are getting bad FASTER than they originally thought, as they've discovered more of these positive feedback loops.

While you're sitting there with your ignorance of what scientists are saying and your horribly inept misunderstanding of even basic physics, shrugging your shoulders and saying, 'Ah it'll work itself out', the people who ACTUALLY HAVE A CLUE are scared shitless. We're literally heading into uncharted territory with our entire planetary climate and ecosystem.

Doesn't that make you the least bit uncomfortable?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Scientist (anonymous) | Posted September 10, 2008 at 22:07:52

^sorry my comment above is directed to Smith.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted September 10, 2008 at 23:26:38

Scientist, science is not nature, it is a system designed by men to try and understand nature. As a result, science is only as good as the results it actually predicts.

So far the predictions made by the global warming crowd are failing to jive with reality. This summer is a great example of how off base these models are proving to be. Had any of the models predicted that this summer would be as cold as it was, then that would have added to the credibility of the scientists involved, but they didn't, and now they look stupid.

In business, people that fail to predict trends go out of business, and the same should be true of climate scientists.

This past winter was also much colder than average, with thickening arctic ice, and record snowfalls over the northern hemisphere.

Yet, the Global Warming crowd want us to accept that no matter what reality is telling us, it's the computer models that we need to base our decisions on. Why? Why should I believe someone who can't even predict the short term changes in the climate, let alone a few years out?

If you want to base your decisions on some perverted guilty conscience about white men screwing up the earth, that is your choice. I will live in a more pragmatic fashion, and do what is best for my own personal lifestyle, and let you worry about it for me.

Make sure you keep me informed if your models actually begin to work.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted September 10, 2008 at 23:52:17

Peter, your rebuttal was impressive. I especially like the way you attack my arguments with a bold use of the exclamation point.

To your point about ice caps, no I haven't noticed a great change, but then again I don't reside in the Arctic. I have noticed that this past year was colder than usual in many parts of the populated world. Did you notice this as well?

Why don't we call it a draw, and admit that no one has a clear picture of the climate and its long term trends. That way you can save yourself from looking any more foolish than you already do.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By historywillspitonus (anonymous) | Posted September 11, 2008 at 07:05:23

Smith, Smith, Smith. Your epistemology is both confused and confusing; you attempt to use rational argument to attack rational enquiry and the scientific consensus. You can't use reason to fight reason - but pseudo-reason works just fine for this. I think you'll find that's what you've been using. You're also horribly misled, both about recent scientific observations of arctic sea ice, and about how long term climate models interact with our year-on-year experience of the weather and so on.

Your final comment about pragmatism and doing what's best for your personal lifestyle is really all you needed to say - all that muddle-headed tosh about computer models etc was quite unnecessary. You have a position - self interest - which dictates your view on wider issues you don't understand. We get it - enough half-arsed rationalisation now.

No, let's not call it a draw; we have 99% of the world's peer-reviewed climate science on our side, whereas you have some crackpot notions you read on the internet somewhere. Instead, let's agree to disagree. You can continue on down your path of self-imposed ignorance and self-interest, while the rest of us try to work out solutions to the grave problems facing all of us over the coming decades. Those solutions will have to include simpletons like yourself, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By historywillspitonus (anonymous) | Posted September 11, 2008 at 11:46:34

Smith, Smith, Smith. Your epistemology is both confused and confusing; you attempt to use rational argument to attack rational enquiry and the scientific consensus. You can't use reason to fight reason - but pseudo-reason works just fine for this. I think you'll find that's what you've been using. You're also horribly misled, both about recent scientific observations of arctic sea ice, and about how long term climate models interact with our year-on-year experience of the weather and so on.

Your final comment about pragmatism and doing what's best for your personal lifestyle is really all you needed to say - all that muddle-headed tosh about computer models etc was quite unnecessary. You have a position - self interest - which dictates your view on wider issues you don't understand. We get it - enough half-arsed rationalisation now.

No, let's not call it a draw; we have 99% of the world's peer-reviewed climate science on our side, whereas you have some crackpot notions you read on the internet somewhere. Instead, let's agree to disagree. You can continue on down your path of self-imposed ignorance and self-interest, while the rest of us try to work out solutions to the grave problems facing all of us over the coming decades. Those solutions will have to include simpletons like yourself, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted September 11, 2008 at 16:59:03

historywillspitonus,

The fact is, climate scientists failed to predict that this past year would be as cold as it was. This inability to predict near term temperatures highlights the complete folly of basing major decisions on untested, and porous theories.

As I have said previously, human beings are terrible when it comes to predicting long term trends, and the climate is no different.

The fact that computers are involved does not change this fact, as computer models were recently used for predicting risk in the recent sub prime crisis. The people that developed those models were highly educated, and they were also completely wrong.

Your opinion is that I am misinformed about Arctic ice, and year on year weather weather changes, so what? The fact is, I am not claiming to be an expert on long term climate trends, it is your group that is doing this.

You have the burden of providing accurate, and predictive information, no one else. You have failed to do this, and in fact flipping a coin would appear as insightful as your scientific consensus has been.

The fact that climate scientists have a title beside their name does not mean they are super human. I know most people look to authority figures for direction in their life, but that is no excuse for not thinking critically about what is being claimed as absolute truth.

Open your eyes, look around you, and you will see the world is much the same as it has been for the past century. The only thing that has changed is the message, and that is that humans are bad, Mother Earth is good, and we need to start praying at the alter of the environment.

In my opinion, humans are rational creatures who have always adapted to changes in the environment, and we will continue to do so. No central planning needed, just individuals making the best decision for themselves and their families.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Scientist (anonymous) | Posted September 11, 2008 at 19:12:21

Sorry Smith.

The fact is, your inability to comprehend the difference between weather and climate, or the difference between a long-term trend and an outlier data point, highlights the complete folly of even continuing to debate scientific issues with someone so obviously ignorant of how either science, statistics, or systems theory works.

All I can say is: Shhh, be quiet now, the grownups are trying to talk.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted September 11, 2008 at 21:46:55

Scientist, I understand the difference between short term trends and longer term trends.

I also understand that it is easier to predict short term trends than long term trends. That is why insurance exists, and also why companies buy futures contracts to hedge against unknown risks in the longer term.

I also understand that your group has been horribly off the mark with regard to short term predictions. This fact tells me that your powers of prediction are no better than the guy off the street, and perhaps even worse if this year is any indication.

If Global Warming supporters were a little less arrogant in their rhetoric, we could have a honest debate about what is happening, both over the short term, and the long term. The problem is that you believe you know the absolute truth, which like any good religion, means that debate is over. Any more discussion on the issue is a waste of time.

One thing I do know, is that does not make for good science.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By adam1 (anonymous) | Posted September 11, 2008 at 22:17:11

ASmith, if you want to be taken seriously you should get a scientific background. Your writings make it evident you don't have one.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted September 12, 2008 at 00:22:23

Adam1, I see, in order to have an opinion on this subject, one must be a professional scientist.

I guess that means that only urban planners should be able to talk about urban issues, priests about religion, doctors about health, and child psychologists about raising children.

The rest of the population is to simply listen to the experts, and follow their directions. Perhaps people should even need to be registered by the government before they are allowed to talk about certain issues, sounds like a great plan Adolf.

Instead of attacking my credentials, why not rebut my specific points.

I would love to here anyone address my specific points regarding the failure of scientists to predict short term trends in the weather/climate.

I would also like to hear why this failure makes them a credible source of information regarding any climate issues.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Scientist (anonymous) | Posted September 12, 2008 at 02:18:31

Christ almighty Smith, persecution much?

"I see, in order to have an opinion on this subject, one must be a professional scientist."

You don't need to be a professional scientist, you just need to have a background in science. You need to actually know some science, get it? Lots of people aren't scientists but understand scientific concepts. You clearly arent one of those people.

"The rest of the population is to simply listen to the experts, and follow their directions."

No, the rest of the population should GET THEMSELVES A FRIGGING EDUCATION so they don't sound like idiots when they spout off about things they don't understand.

"sounds like a great plan Adolf"

Did you seriously just Godwin yourself? Who are you even arguing with? Not the people on this forum, who actually understand cliamte science.

"I would love to here anyone address my specific points regarding the failure of scientists to predict short term trends in the weather/climate.

Clue train coming into the station righw now: CLIMATE SCIENTISTS DON'T MAKE SHORT TERM WEATHER PREDICTIONS. If you actually understood the difference between climate and weather, maybe you'd get this really, really simple concept.

"I would also like to hear why this failure makes them a credible source of information regarding any climate issues."

Their predictions are actually very accurate, if anything the global climate system is destabilizing even faster than they thought, thanks to all the tipping point triggers that you're too stubbornly ignorant to bother learning about.

One last time, sing it with me, one outlier does not a trend unmake.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By historywillspitonus (anonymous) | Posted September 12, 2008 at 12:38:59

Smith, Smith, Smith. Your epistemology is both confused and confusing; you attempt to use rational argument to attack rational enquiry and the scientific consensus. You can't use reason to fight reason - but pseudo-reason works just fine for this. I think you'll find that's what you've been using. You're also horribly misled, both about recent scientific observations of arctic sea ice, and about how long term climate models interact with our year-on-year experience of the weather and so on.

Your final comment about pragmatism and doing what's best for your personal lifestyle is really all you needed to say - all that muddle-headed tosh about computer models etc was quite unnecessary. You have a position - self interest - which dictates your view on wider issues you don't understand. We get it - enough half-arsed rationalisation now.

No, let's not call it a draw; we have 99% of the world's peer-reviewed climate science on our side, whereas you have some crackpot notions you read on the internet somewhere. Instead, let's agree to disagree. You can continue on down your path of self-imposed ignorance and self-interest, while the rest of us try to work out solutions to the grave problems facing all of us over the coming decades. Those solutions will have to include simpletons like yourself, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted September 12, 2008 at 14:01:23

Scientist, the message coming from the scientific community indicates that they believe that the world has but a few short years before the climate spins out of control. There is no debating that fact.

In this respect, climate scientists ARE making short term predictions, namely that in a short period of time, bad things are definitely going to happen that will eventually destroy the planet as we know it.

However, in the real world, where most people actually live, the climate seems absolutely unremarkable.

In fact, one might even say that it has been getting cooler the last few years. Either way, the contrast between the message being delivered by scientists, and the actual observable effects, are widening every day.

You can spit out terms like "tipping point triggers", but this does not make your case any stronger. It simply adds a level of confusion, that is ultimately designed to keep normal people from questioning "expert" opinion.

As to the long term predictive success of climate models, there is none. All climate scientists have been doing the past decade is to extend an observable trend into a straight line, thus creating the impression that the world will burn up.

The problem with observing a trend and then following it to its natural conclusion, is that trends always end. If you have failed to recognize this, it doesn't say much about your formal education.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By block43 (anonymous) | Posted September 12, 2008 at 15:18:11

A Smith: Do some research on La Nina and the effect it has on our part of the planet. At the beginning of 2008 a weak La Nina developed. For Hamilton La Nina's typically generate persistent cool, wet weather in the Southern Ontario Region.

El Nino years are typically hotter and drier than normal for this area.

The variation between these two cycles is predominantly due to the location of the jet stream, which is affected, in part, by ocean temperatures. Specifically, for us in Hamilton, the Pacific Ocean temperature is a leading determinate to the formation of the jet stream.

Please remember that climate data needs to be analyzed on a global scale to determine whether the global temperature of the planet is rising or cooling. The amount of precipitation and cooler temperatures in Hamilton (and the broader northeastern region of North America) this year is very typical for a La Nina year and should in no way be used to extrapolate global climate trends.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted September 12, 2008 at 16:17:26

I hesitate to wade into this debate since I am a scientific illiterate, but since A Smith has brought up "observable effects" to defend his state of denial, I thought I would share some of my own "observable effects":

  • Live caterpillars in the woods on New Year's Eve.

  • Plants in my garden that should be dormant, still green in December.

  • dull Fall colours because nighttime temperatures aren't low enough.

I believe the climate is changing not because I mindlessly accept the consensus of the scientific community, but because I have seen the "observable effects" with my own eyes. Even my kids can see it, as can anyone who spends any time in nature.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted September 12, 2008 at 21:38:23

Block43, you make a great point. There are likely hundreds factors that affect our weather/climate and each of these factors, including solar activity, but not limited to, are extremely unpredictable.

However, in order to get an accurate view of the big picture, each and every individual variable has to be predictable as well.

Assuming this is possible, further knowledge of how each and every individual variable interacts with one another is also necessary.

In this way, knowing what will happen in the short run is a necessity, since it is the near term changes that will ultimately affect what happens in the long run.

Failure to be able to predict the short term, therefore, casts doubt on the accuracy of inputs that what will be used to determine what happens in the long term.

To argue against this position implies that you can know the winner of the Super Bowl, without first knowing who is even playing in the game. Possible, but highly improbable.

Highwater, I am sure you are correct with regards to what you have observed, and I have also observed interesting changes in the environment.

What I haven't observed , however, is any evidence that makes me think the world is in the grips of run away heat build up. Especially when recent evidence points to the contrary.

To keep all of this in perspective, one should recall that thirty years ago, scientists thought the world was headed for another Ice Age.

Apparently they were a little off the mark back then, so I tend to think they may be overshooting a little bit now as well.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By block43 (anonymous) | Posted September 13, 2008 at 03:17:53

I do not know who is going to win the super bowl, nor do I care. I do know that La Nina and El Nino typically run on a 7 year cycle (i.e. La Nina years return approximately every 7 years and El Nino as well, at the mid point).

I do think that you blatant disregard for the items brought up in this discussion show that you are feeble and may even own stock in oil exploration.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted September 13, 2008 at 19:28:57

Block43, I think you're missing the point a tiny bit. The point is that climate scientists do not have a good track record predicting anything, except maybe the weather a couple of days out.

Therefore, everything that flows from their mouths is irrelevant until they do.

No track record, no credibility.

Furthermore, it is not up to me to disprove their theories, rather they have the burden of providing strong, reproducible evidence confirming their hypothesis.

All we have so far are results of computer simulations that rely on incomplete data, and untested calculations. Nothing that can be modeled from start to finish, just open ended predictions.

That is why I point to the short term. If scientists could develop models that could reliably predict what the weather/ climate would be a year or two ahead of time, this would prove that their powers of prediction were indeed very strong.

So far they are either unwilling to do this, or they don't think it is necessary.

Either way, it is unfortunate, because without first developing a record of predictive success, there is no reason to take them seriously.

Those who chose to believe the recommendations of people with zero track record are not believers in science, they are believers in the messengers (figures of authority).

Don't feel bad about this though, because most people are designed to follow the herd, and most of you fit that mold perfectly.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By block43 (anonymous) | Posted September 14, 2008 at 08:19:11

A Smith: It is very apparent that you do not know what you are talking about based on this line: "The point is that climate scientists do not have a good track record predicting anything, except maybe the weather a couple of days out."

For your information a Meteorologist predicts short term weather, while a Climatologist predicts long term weather trends.

Weather predictions are very challenging to calculate as there are a lot of variables. A slight change to one of the variables can drastically change a weather forcast, which is why people often don't believe the weather man.

Same goes for climatology. However, the global ocean temperatures have been rising, as per the predictions of the majority of climatologists along with arctic ice shelves melting (at a higher rate than predicted). Global ocean temperatures would not be rising if the global temperature were not increasing.

Part of the reason things are happening faster then predicted is precisely because, as you say, "All we have so far are results of computer simulations that rely on incomplete data".

It is my understanding that the vast majority of the world's population does not believe in climate change so you, A Smith, are "following the herd" and most undoubtedly with blinders on..

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted September 14, 2008 at 15:26:32

Block43, you know exactly what I meant when I referred to climate scientists. I was referring to the greater scientific community, whose passion is to try and predict weather/climate patterns.

If I was to broad in my description, then bad on me. However, I was simply trying to do was show your climate friends a little respect, but seeing that you want to push the point, then I will play along.

The fact is, climate "experts" are not experts in anything. They tell us that their job is to predict long term trends in the climate, but they have no record to back this claim up.

Climate scientists were not predicting Global Warming 40 years ago, in fact the opposite is true.

The fact is, all they are doing now is reporting on what has already happened, something any fool can do. The difficult part is proving you can foretell the future, and that is where hard results must be produced.

Show me the consensus predictions decades ago that predicted Global Warming. If you can't do this, then your support of climate experts is not based on a reputation of predictive success, but something else.

If you want to do a little research yourself, there is a great chart (GISS Surface Temperature Analysis) that plots global temperature anomalies form 1880.

This chart illustrates that until around 1980, global ocean temperatures were actually average or below average. Only in about the past 30 years have they started to rise, and even then, in a quite moderate and unremarkable fashion.

Finally, the people I was referring to as "herd members" were not people in other countries, but the majority of people who read this blog, like yourself. People who privy to lots of information from the media, politicians, and activists, but who lack the ability to come up with original thoughts and positions.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By block43 (anonymous) | Posted September 14, 2008 at 18:23:23

This is my last post on this topic. I have done a great deal of research on this topic. In fact my thesis from the University of Wisconsin is on ENSO and the effect it has on the North Eastern United States using ice records for lake Mendota.

The scientific community was talking about global warming then (10 years ago) and the predictions were similar to what is occurring now.

It is recognized that there are global temperature anomalies and even global cooling and warming trends. However, none have been caused directly by humans until most recently.

Interestingly enough, this video is a synopsis of what I learned in my degree, 10 years ago. Climate trends are definitely a challenge to predict as an accurate model also needs to account for the amount and type of all land cover on the earths surface as they each have a different albedo. Along with all of the other feedback loops and emissions into the atmosphere. Even the sun's energy outputs vary from year to year. Very complex and challenging to model, indeed...but still somewhat accurate given these complexities.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted September 14, 2008 at 19:48:24

Block43, good debate.

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds