January 08, 2012
Without Industrialization Ice Age Would Come In 3500 AD

A new paper coming soon in Nature Geoscience presents evidence that our current warm period would end 1500 years from now if only the industrial age hadn't unleashed massive releases of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

The research, led by Chronis Tzedakis of University College, London, examined similarities between the current warm interval between ice ages and a particular point, around 780,000 years ago, during a past warm period known as Marine Isotope Stage 19. Using a variety of methods, the authors conclude that the onset of a new ice age would likely begin about 1,500 years from now, if the concentration of carbon dioxide was back below the levels produced since the Industrial Revolution.

Anticipating some comments: Yes, if you think that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, that its infrared absorption spectrum (see figure 6) is of little consequence, then it's Ice Age for you in 1500 years. At least that'll be the case if you live long enough to get rejuvenation therapies that turn back your aging clock.

Which leads me to another subject: Once we get rejuvenation therapies if I'm still around I am going to try to get large numbers of people to publicly record their beliefs and derived predictions. Let us get people on record saying the ice caps will melt or not and ditto for many other contentious issues. Then after a century or two people can see what mistakes they made. All the proven wrong predictions are needed to make people humble a thousand years from now. Otherwise some of us are going to develop absolutely insufferable unjustified confidence in our delusional beliefs about the future.

Also see Andrew Revkin's post The Next Ice Age and the Anthropocene.

Share |      Randall Parker, 2012 January 08 07:04 PM  Climate Trends


Comments
Fat Man said at January 8, 2012 8:10 PM:

An ice age could ruin your whole day. 20,000 yr ago the spot where I am sitting as I type this was covered by a mile of ice. Warmer is better.

Abelard Lindsey said at January 8, 2012 10:27 PM:

1,500 years is certainly better than within the next 100 years. 1,500 years is more than enough time for us to do the L-5/O'neill thing.

Abelard Lindsey said at January 9, 2012 10:15 AM:

Or figure out a way to prevent the ice age for good.

People obsess over global warming. But the real catastrophe would be another ice age.

gcochran said at January 9, 2012 11:09 AM:

Most people will scorn you for being right when they were wrong.

Phillep Harding said at January 9, 2012 1:50 PM:

Politicians who made claims at the start of the AGW scam about how the sea level was supposed to be as much as 50' higher than it was at the time by the year 2010 have survived being wrong. Those who said those making such claims were full of (beans) are still scorned. Does the author expect some sort of change in human nature between now and then?

anonyq said at January 9, 2012 3:06 PM:

We know what we can expect with an ice age and we know how to survive it. Just move to the green Sahara. AGW is harder as we don't know the extend to it.

Hong said at January 9, 2012 4:00 PM:

Yet the lag between CO2 and temperature increase still remains. Pesky facts

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

bbartlog said at January 9, 2012 4:08 PM:

If a hundred years of living isn't enough to teach someone an appropriate level of confidence in their beliefs, telling them they were wrong about this or that a long time ago will have no effect whatsoever. Besides possibly pissing them off, as gcochran notes.
I mean, try and do this today over a ten year time period and see how far it gets you. Donald Rumsfeld isn't jeered every time he goes out in public, is he?

Randall Parker said at January 9, 2012 7:12 PM:

Hong,

Long time no hear. Hope you are doing well.

Lag time: Makes sense. Something heats up the world (e.g. the natural gradual change in Earth's orientation toward the Sun). Then more CO2 gets released which slowly causes more heating which slowly causes more CO2 to be released. There's a big delay because ice melts slowly even once the temperature equilibrium changes.

Hong said at January 9, 2012 7:52 PM:

Don't misunderstand Randall, I don't endorse the entire theory. My only motivation in posting from the alarmist website was to illustrate even they are grudgingly seeing holes in their doctrine. The trolls will accuse me of cherry picking but since they're full of it, who really listens? lol

The evidence is still thin that orbital patterns trigger a warming feedback. Co2 levels do not correlate sharply with temperature decreases which leads one to think there are other factors involved? Solar radiation and cloud cover perhaps or even methane release.

Hope you still wish me well. heh

Randall Parker said at January 9, 2012 9:41 PM:

bbartlog,

At least if we record more opinions the rest of us will learn the relative accuracy rate of prediction for various people. I'd really like to identify the great predictors.

Randall Parker said at January 9, 2012 10:01 PM:

Hong,

Sure, climate is a complex system with many factors in play. But the idea that climate researchers think something other than CO2 initiates warming out of an ice age or that there's a delay and feedback is really not new news. James Hansen put this in his book a few years ago and the idea extends back many years.

Yes, still wishing you well.

anonyq said at January 10, 2012 4:08 AM:

It would be more surprising if they thought that an increase in CO2 was the reason ice ages ended. The increase in C02 (and less ice cover) is the feedback loop with respect to ending/starting ice ages. With AGW human CO2 is the forcing and reduced ice cover + release of Artic methane/CO2 is the feedback loop

Hong said at January 10, 2012 6:59 AM:

Since the entire theory of AGW rested on the notion that human CO2 levels actually initiated the cycle of global warming and given there's been no temperature increases in 13 years, might it be incumbent to finally put this theory to the dustbin now? Temperature increases and ice ages predates the belching bovines and petrol engines it seems.

Kentucky said at January 10, 2012 7:54 AM:

"Historical results are no guarantee of future performance." But ruthless honesty helps a lot.

Dogmatism and honesty are opposites.

anonyq said at January 10, 2012 9:53 AM:

Noisy signal + solar cycle + 2011 a very hot year for the spot in the solar cycle and i would beg to differ.

"Temperature increases and ice ages predates the belching bovines and petrol engines it seems."

So what. The sun also predates the light bulb but if i switch on the light switch when it is dark than it is definitely the lamp which gives me light.

Hong said at January 10, 2012 12:57 PM:

"Noisy signal + solar cycle + 2011 a very hot year for the spot in the solar cycle and i would beg to differ."

I'm not sure who you're arguing with here since I never said I thought solar activity was either up or down.

"So what. The sun also predates the light bulb but if i switch on the light switch when it is dark than it is definitely the lamp which gives me light. "

The point was that paying to reduce carbon emissions that may not cause the temperature increase, especially during an economic recession, is categorically stupid. Wouldn't you agree?

Phillep Harding said at January 10, 2012 4:38 PM:

Carbon dioxide is supposed to have less an increase in effect as the concentration increases, and the increase in effect is near zero with the present concentration. Carbon dioxide is not relevant at all, except to a con artist's bank account.

Now, methane and water vapor, those are something else again. They have not maxed out yet.

Paul Rain said at January 10, 2012 11:38 PM:

Yeah, as with Phillep Harding the thing that's put me most towards skepticism of the carbon dioxide regulators has been the argument that the present levels of carbon dioxide are already sufficient to absorb much of the radiation on wavelengths that can excite CO2, meaning any increase would be largely irrelevant.

Brett Bellmore said at January 11, 2012 4:40 AM:

1500 years from now, plus or minus 1500 years...

Ronald Brak said at January 11, 2012 6:22 AM:

A VERY CRUDE EXPLANATION OF WHY MORE CO2 MAKES THINGS HOTTER (READ FROM BOTTOM UP)
ALSO CRUDELY EXPLAINS WHY CO2 ON VENUS MAKES VENUS HOTTER THAN MERCURY
.
.
. This could take a while. It's almost as if the atmosphere is more than three inches thick.
.
X And it got absorbed by another CO2 molecule
.
. It got reemitted again
.
X Oh my! Another CO2 molecule absorbed it.
.
. It eventually got reemitted
.
X Oh look! A CO2 molecule absorbed the energy and the atmosphere got warmer. I wonder what happens now?
.
.
.

Ronald Brak said at January 11, 2012 6:25 AM:

Well, that got chewed up a little. In the comment above is supposed to show infrared energy coming out of the ground.

anonyq said at January 11, 2012 7:20 AM:

If the sun has more sun spots it is slightly hotter so the earth temperature is also slightly higher. The sun spot activity has an 11 year cycle and we are at the moment at a minimum but last year was still above average.

It is especially smart to invest in wind during a economic recession. You spend the money mostly now unlike with a for example a gas plant (in which case you spend mostly on fuel in the future)

ps. Slightly higher measured from an Earth temperature of around 300 K

Hong said at January 12, 2012 6:47 AM:

Given the geologic issue of lag and the fact that even the doctrinal warmists admit water vapor accounts for the vast majority of theorized greenhouse gas (70-95 percent depending on who you talk to) the idea of paying to reduce the fractional amount of human-emited CO2 again is a colossal waste of potentially trillions. Good luck convincing Russia, China, and India to reduce their fossil fuel usage.

Experiments to switch to alternative, 'green' energy in Europe, especially Spain and Denmark, was a grab bag of more waste and inefficiency so lets save our tax money for once.

anonyq said at January 12, 2012 8:30 AM:

Without any greenhouse effect the Earth would be below freezing. That 30 degree difference in temperature is mostly due to water vapor but that leaves still a few degrees due to CO2 and that is for the human experience of weather a lot (and also for nature)

Hong said at January 12, 2012 10:55 AM:

The question isn't whether we want a cold planet but as to what role CO2, especially, human-CO2 has on global temperature. CO2 levels usually follow temperature changes so it seems it's influence is negligible. It's obvious the climate models were wrong and assumed a sensitivity that simply wasn't there.

Phillep Harding said at January 12, 2012 5:53 PM:

@anonyq: Well, yes. But /which/ greenhouse gases are of concern, and which, if any, are humans creating enough of to matter?

CO2 is not a concern.

Randall Parker said at January 12, 2012 8:50 PM:

Hong,

The percentage of warming coming from water vapor is beside the point as I see it. Change at the margin is what matters. Without water vapor we'd be extremely cold, not just a few degrees colder. But it is a few degrees that are being argued about with CO2 concentrations.

Again, that CO2 levels follow temperature changes does not disprove CO2's role. In a feedback loop that's just what you'd expect.

Hong said at January 13, 2012 3:14 PM:

The feedback you spoke of seems to be an imperfect theory. Temperatures haven't risen in 13 years while cloud cover may have increased to moderate the climate. Negative feedback therefore sounds more plausible to me.

anonyq said at January 13, 2012 3:21 PM:

You won't expect CO2 to lead if it is not the forcing but the feedback loop as i have said before.


ps. 13 years is a timescale which is way to short for saying something about the climate.

Phillep Harding said at January 13, 2012 4:46 PM:

Present temperatures are still lower than during the Holocene Optimum, when trees were growing on Elesmere Island.

anonyq said at January 13, 2012 5:35 PM:

Climate doesn't only change because of human interference but what is your point?

Engineer-Poet said at January 13, 2012 5:42 PM:

Where were Earth's poles at that time, Mr. Harding?

Ronald Brak said at January 13, 2012 11:57 PM:

No global warming for 13 years? Not according to NASA: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

Hong said at January 14, 2012 7:02 AM:

"You won't expect CO2 to lead if it is not the forcing but the feedback loop as i have said before."

You have and as I've said, based on the geologic record, the positive feedback loop is overrated.

And the models didn't predict these 13 years along with a host of other errors which suggests they were overrated too.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

Ronald Brak said at January 15, 2012 2:21 AM:

Hong, did you miss my link to NASA showing there has been warming in the past 13 years? It's right there, just before your last post.

Engineer-Poet said at January 15, 2012 5:01 AM:

Hong has his orthodoxy, don't bother him with the facts.

Hong said at January 15, 2012 9:23 AM:

I assume my link is more up to date since the article hasn't yet been peer reviewed. And no objective person should forget the contaminating effects of James Hansen's activism on NASA research. Science should never be politicized for socialist money. Now I suggest reading my link unless you're an orthodox troll wedded to alarmism...oh hey there E-P. lol

"Hong has his orthodoxy, don't bother him with the facts."

Still believe the UN tooth fairy will make China comply with trade agreements E-P?

In case you missed some more inconvenient facts.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

Hong said at January 15, 2012 9:45 AM:

More on GISS's and Hansen's integrity issues and spotty record keeping. So spotty even the CRU is considered more reliable. The sheep may have to look elsewhere.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climategate-data/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023339/james-hansen-would-you-buy-a-used-temperature-data-set-from-this-man/

Randall Parker said at January 15, 2012 12:51 PM:

Hong,

My take on debates such as this one: I do not have time to go to grad school to read hundreds of papers on climate research, the basics on atmospheric chemistry and so on. Unless I do that I'm guessing I'm not going to boldly go and figure out major flaws in the work of climate researchers. That's especially the case since I'm way more interested in energy research and especially rejuvenation research anyway.

Farnish and discouragement of breeding in the Delingpole piece: Delingpole can criticize if he wants. But I think it that a return to the Malthusian Trap is inevitable because natural selection will raise human fertility. Maybe the Borg mind or getting wiped out by AI will prevent that. But otherwise we return to the Malthusian Trap with a very large human population. Farnish's position isn't so much wrong as futile. The very people who will listen to him carry genes that don't make them want babies intensely enough. The ones with genes that make them want babies more will have more babies and those babies will want to have more babies.

Attacking Hansen: Kinda besides the point. If he stood alone okay. But thousands of climate researchers think CO2 emissions are a problem for climate. Or am I wrong on this point?

Mind you, if Greenland and Antarctica start melting so fast that the waters rise to an alarming extent I expect we'll do climate engineering to stop it. But I do not think that character assassination is an appropriate response to scientists who think we have a problem with CO2 emissions.

Engineer-Poet said at January 15, 2012 5:52 PM:

I'm such an "alarmist" I've been cooly debunking the alarmism over nuclear power since the 1970's, and reminding people that it isn't a choice between dirty coal and not-ready-for-base-load renewables.  But what's a 35-year track record compared to your dogma, Hong?

Hong said at January 15, 2012 8:53 PM:

"I do not have time to go to grad school to read hundreds of papers on climate research, the basics on atmospheric chemistry and so on. Unless I do that I'm guessing I'm not going to boldly go and figure out major flaws in the work of climate researchers. "

I'm no grad student and neither are you but we're more than capable of seeing the nudity of the imperial warmists. It might be time you did some more reading than from Hansen or Mann. Try McIntyre, Pielke Sr, or Spencer. Any partisan will leave you blindsided. Read their blogs if nothing else. It could save you tons of screen time with me. lol

"Attacking Hansen: Kinda besides the point. If he stood alone okay. But thousands of climate researchers think CO2 emissions are a problem for climate. Or am I wrong on this point?"

I think you're wrong. I think thousands of researchers can be wrong. Educated men and women once believed in Eugenics, Craniology, the geocentric theory, global cooling. 'Climate researchers' today are no different. With all the money pouring into their research would they offer another opinion? Follow the money Randall. Where does it profit such people to conclude against the wishes of their government patron? And why is Mann so hesitant to address the simple issue of lag? Hansen, Mann, Gore, Jones are all global alarmist champions with clay feet. My recommendation: find someone else who isn't paid to deliver the party line.

"But I do not think that character assassination is an appropriate response to scientists who think we have a problem with CO2 emissions."

Character enlightenment. A man who refused to release his algorithms and who's GISS constantly 'adjusts' their surface temperature readings (until they have the results they desire) is not your source of gospel truth. He's a partisan hack apparently willing to violate every ethical rule to promote his doctrine. A strong argument has been forwarded to show CO2 (certainly man made) is not the problem but merely the symptom. The ball is in the alarmist court if they want to play or admit it's a religion, not a science.

Hong said at January 15, 2012 9:06 PM:

"I'm such an "alarmist" I've been cooly debunking the alarmism over nuclear power since the 1970's,"

I think you need to retire that leisure suit. 'Coolness' requires a level of self deprecation and humor you sorely lack. Words to describe your manner are: rage, fury, impotence, shame...


"But what's a 35-year track record compared to your dogma, Hong?"

A 35 year record of low achievement and self made embarrassment against irrefutable skepticism if I could judge based on your ravings here E-P. After all, do (can?) you even make the effort to argue intelligently against my 'dogma' before beating your hairy chest Mr. Ron Burgandy? Or offer reasoned opinions like some of the others here or is ad hominem attack all that's left of doctrinal warmist trolls like yourself? After all, it should be easy for such a self appointed Mind but you fail every time old man. All you have is this pathetic display of emotional masturbation and your habit of hiding behind mama Randall's skirt. I can't help but pity you but I delight in trashing your witless prejudice.

Engineer-Poet said at January 16, 2012 4:02 AM:
I delight in trashing your witless prejudice.
... says the one who could not be a better follower of Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" if he tried.  Particularly Rule 11:  "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it."  You are completely unable to deal with the issue on the evidence, so you attack personalities like Mann.

This will lead to world-wide disaster, but you don't care because your goal isn't to forestall it but to aggrandize power to yourself.  I used to wonder how people like you can stand to look at yourselves in the mirror in the morning, but I have since learned what psychopaths are.

Ronald Brak said at January 16, 2012 7:15 PM:

Wow, that's was impressive! Let's see what happens when I do this:

Hong, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology data shows warming over the past 13 years. Is this wrong? Are you going to tell me that Australian meteorologists are being paid off to fake the data? Because it would require pretty much the entire department to be taking bribes. You can't just bribe one guy at the top, you know. People in different areas would see their base station data was being fiddled with. I take it you don't have any clue as to how close to impossible it would be to bribe the entire Bureau of Meteorolgy? You say follow the money. Well, I think that being accurate with the data our entire agricultural industry uses might be where the smart money is.

Hong said at January 17, 2012 6:53 AM:

"Wow, that's was impressive!"

I suppose you mean E-Ps frothing hyperbole? I know it's pathetic yet hysterical.


"Hong, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology data shows warming over the past 13 years. Is this wrong?"

The study I linked too was considered the most comprehensive so yes I believe you're wrong. Dr. Curry flatly says there has been no warming for the past 13 years and she's a believer.


"Are you going to tell me that Australian meteorologists are being paid off to fake the data? "

lol, surface temperature data is notoriously unreliable as the study authors ruefully admit. Not every 'climatologist' needs to commit fraud to present an alarmist conclusion.


"I take it you don't have any clue as to how close to impossible it would be to bribe the entire Bureau of Meteorolgy?"

You mean threaten them with not publishing their papers if they won't toe the line or carry on a pointless smear campaign against the skeptics by calling them 'deniers'. That sort of academic corruption? I take it you don't have any clue as to how often that's happened before.


"You say follow the money. Well, I think that being accurate with the data our entire agricultural industry uses might be where the smart money is. "

Try broadening your perspective and imagine a worldwide industry based on providing government endorsed conclusions for grant money. See how a University President (the same one who ignored pedophilia from another staff member) at Penn State carried out a cursory investigation of their professor and 'exonerated' him to protect that income stream. It's really not that difficult.

Hong said at January 17, 2012 6:59 AM:

"... says the one who could not be a better follower of Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" if he tried. Particularly Rule 11: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it." You are completely unable to deal with the issue on the evidence, so you attack personalities like Mann. "

...says the one who can't be bothered to read scientific facts that dent his blinkered worldview. You are the ultimate case of projection and dishonest debate E-P. I and others here have pointed much of this out before (sorry you were too busy hiding) but everything you need to know about Mann, Jones, Hansen et al and their shenanigans (smearing and suppressing skeptics from publishing, the hockey stick, constant references to global warming in pseudo-religious terms) can be found with a simple google search: Climategate I and it's sequel. Need I point say more Saul? Where have you been to be so far out of touch or are you just aiming to be obtuse? Well, bullseye

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/15/sense-and-sensitivity-ii-the-sequel/#more-54790
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/11/29/climategate-ii-more-smoking-guns-from-the-global-warming-establishment/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100119087/uh-oh-global-warming-loons-here-comes-climategate-ii/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/16/the-behind-the-scenes-bumbling-of-the-hockey-stick/


"This will lead to world-wide disaster, but you don't care because your goal isn't to forestall it but to aggrandize power to yourself. I used to wonder how people like you can stand to look at yourselves in the mirror in the morning, but I have since learned what psychopaths are."

'Aggrandize power to myself'? lol. Such projection from you and such worldly ambitions for me, a guy trashing your hate and prejudice behind a keyboard. Look Dr. Evil, there's no plot for world domination here but thank you for giving me more influence than I deserve. I like to think the simple power of persuasion and common sense can overturn a multi-billion industry of warming hype. But somehow I'm a 'psychopath' for believing in science like this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm instead of greenie religion? lol This fit of hysteria comes every generation from the activist trolls (ie socialist) like yourself and Mann. It's our job as citizens to check such insanity so I look at myself fine without no regrets. You however must be losing what's left of your hair about now. lol

Ronald Brak said at January 17, 2012 6:50 PM:

Hong, the Australian Bureau of Meterorolgy says, and I quote, "Despite the slightly cooler conditions in Australia in 2011, the country’s 10-year average continues to demonstrate the rising trend in temperatures, with 2002-2011 likely to rank in the top two warmest 10-year periods on record for Australia, at 0.52 °C above the long-term average…" But you say that's wrong. So the Bureau of Meterology, and it must pretty much be the whole bureau, is just making that up? Making up data that people's lives depend on. I never knew the Bureau of Meteorolgy staff consisted mostly of sociopaths.

You also so the data is unreliable. If it's unreliable then how do you know there has been no warming? Either the data is reliable and you can state that there has been no warming, or it is unreliable and you can't say that. You can't have it both ways. Do you understand the point I am trying to make here?

And then there's the government conspiracy stuff. Our our coal mining industry is quite capable of funding scientific research to debunk global warming, if there was evidence to be found to debunk it. And Australia's previous government was opposed to taking action to mitigate global warming, so why during their period in office did scientific evidence that global warming was taking place continue to mount? Or were they in on it too somehow? My god! We can't trust anyone! Except apparently you, Hong. You say we're living in a sea of lies but you're the one telling the truth. Gee, if I accept that my government and scientific institutions are all lying to me I guess it makes logical sense to believe what a random person on the internet says. Oh no wait, actually it doesn't.

Hong said at January 17, 2012 9:01 PM:

"Hong, the Australian Bureau of Meterorolgy says, and I quote, "Despite the slightly cooler conditions in Australia in 2011, the country’s 10-year average continues to demonstrate the rising trend in temperatures, with 2002-2011 likely to rank in the top two warmest 10-year periods on record for Australia, at 0.52 °C above the long-term average…" But you say that's wrong. So the Bureau of Meterology, and it must pretty much be the whole bureau, is just making that up? Making up data that people's lives depend on. I never knew the Bureau of Meteorolgy staff consisted mostly of sociopaths. "


Read Dr. Judith Curry. I recommend you study her than entrust your faith to surface temperature stations. Don't put too much stock in any surface temperature readings, including Australia. Like GISS, they've 'adjusted' data in recent years to fit the narrative. http://www.waclimate.net/

You don't need to be a sociopath to trust surface temperature recordings, but you're certainly wrong.
http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_NotGlobal.htm


"You also so the data is unreliable. If it's unreliable then how do you know there has been no warming? Either the data is reliable and you can state that there has been no warming, or it is unreliable and you can't say that. You can't have it both ways. Do you understand the point I am trying to make here?"

Not exactly bro, you're sorta rambling here. Relying on flawed surface methodology is an excuse for ignorance. Try examining satellite data where there's less risk of interference or outside tampering.


"And then there's the government conspiracy stuff. Our our coal mining industry is quite capable of funding scientific research to debunk global warming,"

lol, the amount of money spent by the 'fossil fuel conspiracy' is dwarfed by the UN, the US and other national bureaucracies keen on introducing more regulation to govern our lives.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climate_money.html
http://www.thegwpf.org/the-climate-record/2239-how-much-money-are-us-taxpayers-wasting-on-climate-change-try-106-million-a-day.html

That's a significant amount to protect wouldn't you agree? Hopefully I'm not talking to another kook screaming about two libertarian brothers.


"if there was evidence to be found to debunk it. And Australia's previous government was opposed to taking action to mitigate global warming, so why during their period in office did scientific evidence that global warming was taking place continue to mount?"

Most world data is obtained from the poisoned well of surface temperature readings of just a few sources which have been demonstrated by critics to be unreliable, hence the constant 'adjustments' being made to the data. You can't trust the social activism of your Prime minister or her government, a corrupt IPCC or the activists journalists spreading this green gospel. If you're skeptical of what your government says on most things, then why make a blind exception on 'global warming'?


"Or were they in on it too somehow? My god! We can't trust anyone! Except apparently you, Hong. You say we're living in a sea of lies but you're the one telling the truth. Gee, if I accept that my government and scientific institutions are all lying to me I guess it makes logical sense to believe what a random person on the internet says. Oh no wait, actually it doesn't. "

lol, calm yourself youngster, I never said I was a messiah, simply that I hold a skeptical curiosity from the 'consensus' of your scientific masters. You should try it too and deprogram yourself. Examine the links I've posted above and elsewhere, read the skeptics, and scrutinize the science since they've already proven to be less than ethical judging by the Climategate emails. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/23/did-10-stand-in-way-climate-science/#ixzz1eiu3z3ds If they don't open your mind then there's something deeply wrong with you and you're just another alarmist troll.

Hong said at January 18, 2012 7:28 AM:

"Hong, the Australian Bureau of Meterorolgy says, and I quote, "Despite the slightly cooler conditions in Australia in 2011, the country’s 10-year average continues to demonstrate the rising trend in temperatures, with 2002-2011 likely to rank in the top two warmest 10-year periods on record for Australia, at 0.52 °C above the long-term average…" But you say that's wrong. So the Bureau of Meterology, and it must pretty much be the whole bureau, is just making that up? Making up data that people's lives depend on. I never knew the Bureau of Meteorolgy staff consisted mostly of sociopaths. "


Read Dr. Judith Curry. I recommend you study her than entrust your faith to surface temperature stations. Don't put too much stock in any surface temperature readings, including Australia. Like GISS, they've 'adjusted' data in recent years to fit the narrative. http://www.waclimate.net/

You don't need to be a sociopath to trust surface temperature recordings, but you're certainly wrong.
http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_NotGlobal.htm


"You also so the data is unreliable. If it's unreliable then how do you know there has been no warming? Either the data is reliable and you can state that there has been no warming, or it is unreliable and you can't say that. You can't have it both ways. Do you understand the point I am trying to make here?"

Not exactly bro, you're sorta rambling here. Relying on flawed surface methodology is an excuse for ignorance. Try examining satellite data where there's less risk of interference or outside tampering.


"And then there's the government conspiracy stuff. Our our coal mining industry is quite capable of funding scientific research to debunk global warming,"

lol, the amount of money spent by the 'fossil fuel conspiracy' is dwarfed by the UN, the US and other national bureaucracies keen on introducing more regulation to govern our lives. It's a simple accumulation of power by bureaucrats essentially with nothing better to do.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climate_money.html
http://www.thegwpf.org/the-climate-record/2239-how-much-money-are-us-taxpayers-wasting-on-climate-change-try-106-million-a-day.html

That's a significant amount to protect wouldn't you agree? Hopefully I'm not talking to another kook screaming about two libertarian brothers.


"if there was evidence to be found to debunk it. And Australia's previous government was opposed to taking action to mitigate global warming, so why during their period in office did scientific evidence that global warming was taking place continue to mount?"

Most world data is obtained from the poisoned well of surface temperature readings of just a few sources which have been demonstrated by critics to be unreliable, hence the constant 'adjustments' being made to the data. You can't trust the social activism of your Prime minister or her government, a corrupt IPCC or the activists journalists spreading this green gospel. If you're skeptical of what your government says on most things, then why make a blind exception on 'global warming'?


"Or were they in on it too somehow? My god! We can't trust anyone! Except apparently you, Hong. You say we're living in a sea of lies but you're the one telling the truth. Gee, if I accept that my government and scientific institutions are all lying to me I guess it makes logical sense to believe what a random person on the internet says. Oh no wait, actually it doesn't. "

lol, calm yourself youngster, you don't have to believe me. It's a free society in Australia. However, you should try thinking skeptically and deprogram yourself. Examine the links I've posted above and elsewhere, read the skeptics, and scrutinize the science since they've already proven to be less than ethical judging by the Climategate emails. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/23/did-10-stand-in-way-climate-science/#ixzz1eiu3z3ds If they don't open your mind (if not change it) then there's something deeply wrong with you and you're just another alarmist troll.

Engineer-Poet said at January 18, 2012 6:50 PM:

Hong, I hate to break it to you*, but Forbes magazine, the Telegraph blog and wattsupwiththat.com are NEITHER primary NOR scientific sources.  They're part of the commentariat, and not authoritative in themselves†.

* not really.
† though if you are credulous enough to take them as such, it explains a lot.  Especially Fox News.

Hong said at January 18, 2012 9:27 PM:

"Hong, I hate to break it to you*, but Forbes magazine, the Telegraph blog and wattsupwiththat.com are NEITHER primary NOR scientific sources. "

How frustrating then that these sources have made a monkey out of you and your religious beliefs. But they're useful reference points in a story that's moved beyond science into political, media and academic corruption. It means reading the latest developments from news feeds and blogging commentary including Forbes, the NYT (even them), the Wall Street Journal and skeptics blogs.


"They're part of the commentariat, and not authoritative in themselves."

Your 'authorities' were caught destroying original data, ignoring FOIA requests, smearing skeptics, etc so what's your fictional authoritative standard here? Anthony Watts isn't a 'climate scientist' (as if they hold credibility anymore) but Wattsupwiththat succeeded in large part in changing the GISS methodology for surface temperature. Not that it improved it, but forced them to admit error in their estimates. Since you claim to care so much about scientific source material, you might have learned that if you bothered to read my links.*


"though if you are credulous enough to take them as such, it explains a lot. Especially Fox News."

Unlike a certain alarmist troll here, I don't take any one discredited climate blog as pure gospel to be read to the exclusion of all else. So far some of the best journalism on Climategate is coming from outside 'elite' media (ie a corrupt NYT science reporter caught cheerleading stories for warmist scientists) http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/11/28/leaked-emails-nyt-climategate/ and the best criticism is coming from Mcintyre and Watts.† Again E-P, if you really care about more scientific source material, do your homework and read the above links before blindly sounding off.


* Except hypocrisy suits you best doesn't it?
† And the fact that these blogs and media sources succeeded in discrediting so much of your cherished alarmist narrative, enough to come out and troll another post - especially Fox News, is an added bonus, lol

Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

                       
Go Read More Posts On FuturePundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©