Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner

The Third Official, Authoritative GHG Thread

397K views 7K replies 42 participants last post by  MacDoc 
#1 ·
I'll begin it where we left off--with SINC's informative link to the NEW report on Himalayan glaciers. I will remind members to comment only on the information. provided. If you don't enjoy the contributions of other members, EhMac provides many other destinations that may match your interests!

Himalayan glaciers not melting because of climate change, report finds - Telegraph

Himalayan glaciers are actually advancing rather than retreating, claims the first major study since a controversial UN report said they would be melted within quarter of a century.

Researchers have discovered that contrary to popular belief half of the ice flows in the Karakoram range of the mountains are actually growing rather than shrinking.

The discovery adds a new twist to the row over whether global warming is causing the world's highest mountain range to lose its ice cover.

It further challenges claims made in a 2007 report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the glaciers would be gone by 2035.

Although the head of the panel Dr Rajendra Pachauri later admitted the claim was an error gleaned from unchecked research, he maintained that global warming was melting the glaciers at "a rapid rate", threatening floods throughout north India.

The new study by scientists at the Universities of California and Potsdam has found that half of the glaciers in the Karakoram range, in the northwestern Himlayas, are in fact advancing and that global warming is not the deciding factor in whether a glacier survives or melts.
Emphasis SINC's.
 
#2 ·
I will give this topic one last chance. 3 strikes, and this topic is out.

Please only present information, and thoughtful comments on the information.

Please do not preface information with disparaging remarks / labels towards people who hold opposing views.
 
#3 ·
C02's role in the atmosphere keeping the planet habitable has been understood for a century or more.
Background/history
Introduction - Summary

Water vapour magnifies that warming - or cooling - yes C02 works in both directions.
C02 is a greenhouse cast that persists in the atmosphere for millenia and retains energy/warmth in the atmosphere due to it's physical nature.
Carbon cycle
http://wufs.wustl.edu/pathfinder/pat...s_11_13_07.htm

We have added carbon to the atmosphere the extent not seen in 15 million years.
Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report

result

It's getting warmer
We're responsible
It won't stop getting warmer even if we stop adding C02
It won't reverse in anything like human time scales
Carbon is forever : article : Nature Reports Climate Change

Just what is so hard to comprehend in those simple facts ?

Why not move on past the obvious reality of AGW to the very difficult task of dealing with climate regime that within a few decades will move far out of anything humans have experienced since the last ice age....
a benign relatively stable climate regime that we have already moved out of.

And we are only .6 degree C into it.

THere is no contention of those facts except in the minds of a few cranks - certainly none in the active climate science community - consensus amongst climatologists has been long established and the role of C02 understood for over 100 years.

It's as scientifically well founded as evolution.

Of course some few don't get that either.:rolleyes:
 
#6 ·
We have added carbon to the atmosphere the extent not seen in 15 million years.
If the humongous amounts of CO2 that we've been churning into the atmosphere (esp. via plane trips to Africa & back) are responsible for current global warming, just what caused global warming during the MWP a thousand years ago, when temps are documented to be even warmer than they are today?

What about the fact that, out of the last 10,500 years, 9100 years have been warmer than the golden trio in warmists eyes, 1934/1998/2010?

What. Caused. That?

It's getting warmer
It might be. There are a number of peer reviewed papers out there that show after you get past the fudged data, the urban heat islands, the poor placement of thermometers, etc., etc., etc., that the recent warming disappears into noise in the data.

There is also more & more peer reviewed research pointing to natural causes for the periodicity of climate (both warming & cooling, the sun being the main one).

There is also peer reviewed research out there to indicate we may actually be on the verge of a short (20-40 years) cooling spell, part of the next cycle.

I know, I know. Warmists predicted that, just like they say that floods, earthquakes, and other natural, unrelated phenomena are caused by global warming.

We're responsible
There are some really cute games out there right now running on some multi million dollar computers that, if you average the results of all 32 (both the negatives & the positives), there is an indicator that man may be responsible for some warming. However, nobody can tell you how much man is responsible for.

Interestingly enough, Dr. Roy Spencer, formerly of NASA (you've heard of them. That's where your bud James Hansen promulgates his warmist blog on the taxpayers dime from), has an observation I'd like to share with you:

In fact, NO ONE HAS YET FOUND A WAY WITH OBSERVATIONAL DATA TO TEST CLIMATE MODEL SENSITIVITY. This means we have no idea which of the climate models projections are more likely to come true.

This dirty little secret of the climate modeling community is seldom mentioned outside the community. Don’t tell anyone I told you.
Oooops! OK, Roy, I promise not to let the cat out of the bag... (Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.)

It won't stop getting warmer even if we stop adding C02
Man, you batted that one out of the park! Home run! Grand slam, even!!!

Why? Because there are factors orders of magnitude greater than anthropogenic green house gases which actually do affect climate.

Like, say, old Sol himself?

Besides, if it's that far out of whack, we may as well party like it's 1947. :D

It won't reverse in anything like human time scales
Actually, it will. Even your short 60 odd years have experienced both warming & cooling cycles.


Just what is so hard to comprehend in those simple facts ?
Nothing. Nothing at all. It's pretty obvious to many (more by the day, actually) that the concept of AGW is a fallacy promoted by many to preserve grant monies and perpetrated by socialist organizations like the UN (read: IPCC) to facilitate the transfer of wealth.

Oh, didn't you get the memo?


Why not move on past the obvious reality of AGW to the very difficult task of dealing with climate regime that within a few decades will move far out of anything humans have experienced since the last ice age....
a benign relatively stable climate regime that we have already moved out of.
Dude...it ain't been proven, yet. That's why.

Take your climate models (a glorified set of computer games with a programmer's built in bias) out of the equation & what you got?

Nuttin'

Sorry.

And what do you mean by benign? It snowed some the last little while. The sun shone some the last little while?

Records broke? Records get broke all the time.

What's changed?

THere is no contention of those facts except in the minds of a few cranks - certainly none in the active climate science community - consensus amongst climatologists has been long established and the role of C02 understood for over 100 years.
It just ain't a real MacDoc post unless there's some good, old-fashioned name calling. Thank you for not disappointing.

Isn't it interesting how some of these so called cranks have managed to get a peer reviewed paper or two published?

Tell ya what. I put a lot of links into the last two GHG threads, links that will take you to peer reviewed papers authored by people who don't agree with the warmist point of view.

Go find one, any one, take it to yer buddies on the hockey team & let them have at it.

I'll wait for the results here. No, really. Go ahead.

Or, I can pick one for you. Your call, either way.

One more thing: There is no such thing as consensus in science. Period. You start mouthing garbage like that & any semblance of credibility you may have had just went out the window.

Lessee, where were we? Ah, yes, cranks. Speaking of which, have you ever gone over the list of failed predictions from yer bud, the infamous & immortal James Hansen?

Have a look. Oh, wait, here's one:

(This one from 1986 on temperature increase in America)

Hansen said the average U.S. temperature had risen from one to two degrees since 1958 and is predicted to increase an additional 3 or 4 degrees sometime between 2010 and 2020. -- The Press-Courier (Milwaukee) June 11 1986
You just noted 6/10's of a degree. He said 6 degrees. Which is it?

You called me out on a guest post in GHG2 from yer bud Willie E because he lied or some such. What about the credentials of a soothsayer, er, climatologist who can't be any closer than a factor of 10?

It's as scientifically well founded as evolution.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, that's a good one. Nice ad hominem attack cleverly disguised as a simile. Good work!

Of course some few don't get that either.:rolleyes:
Oh, I got it, thx anyway.

I'm just glad that my relatives had the stones to climb out of the pond despite being told by some that the sky was falling & the world would end tomorrow if I didn't buy into the proper faith...

Had a couple of them doomsayers show up at the door just last week, actually.

Great fun, them proselytizers, no?
 
#4 ·
Britain is facing up to the reality

Defra's UK climate-proofing plans unveiled
By David Shukman Environment correspondent, BBC News


Train goes past sea front in Scotland (PA) Climate change could affect several aspects of UK infrastructure

Roads built to the same standards as the scorching south of France; fish moved from the overheated Lake District to cooler waters in Scotland; lighthouses threatened by rising seas.
more
BBC News - Defra's UK climate-proofing plans unveiled
 
#5 ·
C02's role in the atmosphere keeping the planet habitable has been understood for a century or more.
Agreed.

Water vapour magnifies that warming - or cooling - yes C02 works in both directions. C02 is a greenhouse cast that persists in the atmosphere for millenia and retains energy/warmth in the atmosphere due to it's physical nature.
Scientists can't yet even agree whether carbon dioxide levels rise as a cause or result of warming. I'm inclined to believe they follow warming. The role of water vapour as a GHG is poorly understood and not well modeled--often not modeled at all in computer simulations of the Earth's climate.

We have added carbon to the atmosphere the extent not seen in 15 million years.Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report
Still much disagreement on how much CO2 has been added by humans or whether the levels are unprecedented. Much of the so-called warming from the year 1800 on doesn't conform to proxies designed to identify CO2 levels--and certainly doesn't conform to periods of cooling during those centuries.

It's getting warmer
If you continue to remove climate reporting stations in colder climates, then use proxies from warmer locations you might get such an appearance. Similarly, with half of North American climate stations located close to urban heat sources that were simply not there 50 years ago, you might expect to get such results. When we adjust for the effects of El Nino we get nothing.


It won't stop getting warmer even if we stop adding C02. It won't reverse in anything like human time scales.
Agreed, but not for the reasons you suggest. So why bother controlling GHGs at this point?

Why not move on past the obvious reality of AGW to the very difficult task of dealing with climate regime that within a few decades will move far out of anything humans have experienced since the last ice age....
a benign relatively stable climate regime that we have already moved out of.
The benign, relatively stable climate was the anomaly.


There is no contention of those facts except in the minds of a few cranks - certainly none in the active climate science community - consensus amongst climatologists has been long established and the role of C02 understood for over 100 years.
These are data collected by various people--and they are up for contention. They are not facts as you intend the use of the word. The consensus is a myth. Please don't call those who disagree with your theories "cranks" as this is not permitted in this thread.


Britain is facing up to the reality
Britain is facing up to the reality that whatever climate nature serves up to us, we should be ready for it. Much better to spend money on shoring up infrastructure than on so-called GHG measures that will add up to nothing.
 
#7 ·
Warming North Atlantic water tied to heating Arctic, according to new study
January 27, 2011


Photo of the German research vessel Maria S. Merian moving through sea ice in Fram Strait northwest of Svalbard. The research team discovered the water there was the warmest in at least 2,000 years, which has implications for a warming and melting Arctic. Credit: Credit: Nicolas van Nieuwenhove (IFM-GEOMAR, Kiel)

The temperatures of North Atlantic Ocean water flowing north into the Arctic Ocean adjacent to Greenland -- the warmest water in at least 2,000 years -- are likely related to the amplification of global warming in the Arctic, says a new international study involving the University of Colorado Boulder.

Led by Robert Spielhagen of the Academy of Sciences, Humanities and Literature in Mainz, Germany, the study showed that water from the Fram Strait that runs between Greenland and Svalbard -- an archipelago constituting the northernmost part of Norway -- has warmed roughly 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the past century. The Fram Strait water temperatures today are about 2.5 degrees F warmer than during the Medieval Warm Period, which heated the North Atlantic from roughly 900 to 1300 and affected the climate in Northern Europe and northern North America.

The team believes that the rapid warming of the Arctic and recent decrease in Arctic sea ice extent are tied to the enhanced heat transfer from the North Atlantic Ocean, said Spielhagen. According to CU-Boulder's National Snow and Ice Data Center, the total loss of Arctic sea ice extent from 1979 to 2009 was an area larger than the state of Alaska, and some scientists there believe the Arctic will become ice-free during the summers within the next several decades.

"Such a warming of the Atlantic water in the Fram Strait is significantly different from all climate variations in the last 2,000 years," said Spielhagen, also of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Keil, Germany.

According to study co-author Thomas Marchitto, a fellow at CU-Boulder's Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, the new observations are crucial for putting the current warming trend of the North Atlantic in the proper context.
"We know that the Arctic is the most sensitive region on the Earth when it comes to warming, but there has been some question about how unusual the current Arctic warming is compared to the natural variability of the last thousand years," said Marchitto, also an associate professor in CU-Boulder's geological sciences department.

"We found that modern Fram Strait water temperatures are well outside the natural bounds."
Warming North Atlantic water tied to heating Arctic, according to new study
 
#9 ·
The topic of GHG, climate change etc... basically comes down to, nobody know for sure.

This thread turns into a tennis battle of links to reports. Anyone can find a report opposing and against.

What's clear is what the majority of scientist think and are reporting, which is that man can and is affecting the climate.

Again, whether its the case or not, seems pretty hard to prove, especially on a Mac forum. Some of us have clearly taken sides on who we believe.

My viewpoint can be shifted as new information comes out.

I think the problem of this thread, is that some on either side, aren't interested in exploring this topic, but rather, are more interested in playing study-link tennis. :eek: Any link with new information is simply rejected, and the same arguments are played over in a loop.

Anyways... link away. :)
 
#10 ·
Y'know, I'd be far more interested in this (these) threads if we took the one thing we all agree on - the temperature is climbing and will have significant effects on climate and humans - and discussed responses, both practical (new home cooling technologies, solar energy uses, coastal protection) and policy (domestic & international).

Until then... GHG bickering is nothing more than something about which everyone to argue...
 
#12 ·
Y'know, I'd be far more interested in this (these) threads if we took the one thing we all agree on - the temperature is climbing and will have significant effects on climate and humans
Sorry, CM, I don't even agree to that.

The way I see it is that the temps -may- be climbing, or perhaps have even peaked. If they are & we are in the middle of another cycle then the temps could be heading down. Frankly, I'm hedging towards the going down for the next little while.

I certainly don't believe that global warming (or whatever the nom du jour is today) is responsible for floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, whatever.

I'm getting to the point where I believe man has had very little effect on the climate compared to other sources of input (the sun, volcanoes, cosmic rays, etc.). There is nothing (climatically speaking) that has happened in the lives of anyone today that has not happened dozens, hundreds, if not thousands of times in the past.

There has been higher CO2 levels before & life pulled through. There have been higher temperatures before & the planet didn't stop rotating. There have been higher & lower climatic everything before & yet, here we are, products of that process.

If the climate does go extreme, man will survive until he/she/it can & then be gone like so many species before.

FWIW, I've never, ever had to Google anything to back up the point of view I've presented. I have a browser folder with hundreds of links I've read over the course of the last couple of years (pro & con). It's pretty easy to reach in there & pull out a pertinent item.
______

The study that MacDoc just linked to I read two days ago. I have questions about forams being used as proxy data. That being said, the warming is certainly not unprecedented, as Macfury has pointed out.
______

Interestingly, Mr. Mayor, is that I will take the time to address or refute an article or posting, whereas others just sprinkle links like so much fertilizer without addressing other posts. I don't know if they are afraid to do so because they have no answers or if they are afraid that it will somehow legitimize the opposing argument by addressing it.

Perhaps they are so arrogant that such things are merely beneath them. Perhaps their own hypocrisy prevents them from making a cogent argument.

I don't know for sure, but I have my theories...
______

Last, & certainly least, are the hecklers who come here for no other reason than to stir the pot.

Your efforts have certainly contributed to the closing of the previous two threads.

Thanks for nothing.
 
#11 ·
I agree. Sometimes I've kinda (well not kinda) mocked the whole escapade, because really, no one is a scientist here. It seemed to me the most honest about not really knowing for sure was the couple who I thought was by far the most knowledgeable. They've since left.

It really does become a war of links, (my google enguard! comment) preceded by a commentary of what crooks, or blind, or whatever.

I think as humans here, there are an awful lot of really disturbing environmental things going on, and as I think a few pointed out rightly, GHG isn't our only biggest worry.

There is one thing that is definitely not something many can argue about, the use of fossil fuels, is not good for our environment. And certainly nor are many other things we are doing to our environment either.

I fear the worst is yet to come, and all these petty arguments, will seem awfully trivial, if any of us are lucky enough to survive all of this.

With that, I'm going to go eat a really, big greasy pizza.
 
#14 ·
<snort>
 
#18 ·
I posted a link not too long ago in GHG 2 about galactic cosmic rays & the author's conclusion of their effect on climate.

Further to that is a post by Joanne Nova who compiles data from a couple of sources into a nice, clear explanation with excellent graphs.

With the oceans covering 70% of the planet and the clouds covering 60% of the sky, water in its various forms, dominates our climate . Solar magnetic effects correlate with changes in clouds. This graph below shows the rise and fall over the last 1000 years. Both the Medieval Warm Period and the The Little Ice Age (upper graph) match the highs and lows of Galactic Cosmic rays (lower graph).
A brief explanation of the Planetary Physics involved:

The right physics in my opinion: We have a strongly controlled climate. The solar constant and the physical properties of water keep us controlled.

* The heat transfer from surface into space uses two mechanisms in series: Convection in the lower atmosphere, IR radiation in the higher atmosphere.
* The warmer it becomes, going from pole to equator, the more important the convection part becomes. The height on which radiation flux becomes larger than convection flux, the convection top, rises.
* More convection means a higher tropopause, a lower cloud top temperature, a higher condensation efficiency, and in this way a drier upper troposphere.
* These two effects: a higher convection top and a drier upper troposphere, both increase Outgoing Longwave Radiation. This controls the temperature.
Conclusions:

* Rising Outgoing Long-wave radiation with more than 3.7 W/m^2 per ºC SST cannot be the effect of rising CO2 or of the increase of other “greenhouse” gases. Rising OLR/SST with 8.6 W/m^2K means that the atmosphere has become more transparent to IR radiation in the past 60 years. The “greenhouse effect” has become less.
* Solar constant and the properties of water determine our climate
* Rising surface temperature is tightly controlled by increasing wet convection and concomitant upper tropospheric drying
* No observational evidence for influence of CO2 on past or present climate
* Strong observational correlation of solar magnetic activity with climate temperatures, presumably via cloud condensation nucleation and albedo
 
#21 ·
Models? Hey, we got them, too!

Further to Greenland's current warming & melting glacier's, I bring you this analysis of a paper published in Nature Geoscience:

model simulations show that "ice acceleration, thinning and retreat begin at the calving terminus and then propagate upstream through dynamic coupling along the glacier." What is more, they find that "these changes are unlikely to be caused by basal lubrication through surface melt propagating to the glacier bed," which phenomenon is often cited by climate alarmists as a cause of great concern with respect to its impact on sea level.

Nick et al. conclude that "tidewater outlet glaciers adjust extremely rapidly to changing boundary conditions at the calving terminus," and that their results thus imply that "the recent rates of mass loss in Greenland's outlet glaciers are transient and should not be extrapolated into the future [italics added]." And if this advice is followed, the extreme sea-level-rise scenarios promoted by the alarmists, such as Gore and Hansen, fail to materialize.
Kinda like a dam on a river, huh? You dam the water, it backs up. The dam breaks, the backed up water flows. Yeah, the ice is a bit more dense but same principle.

Who knew?
 
#22 ·
Word watch: We've seen the abject failure of the term "Global Warming" as temperatures cooled. This gave way to the second abject failure of "Climate Change," a ludicrously neutral term on which everyone can agree--climate changes, so what? The new one creeping around is "Global Weirding" in which almost every notable weather event is branded an inexplicable anomaly. Nice to see such despair in action on the PR front.
 
#23 ·
OK, so some warmists are stuck in the last hunnert years, ignoring any data older than that & completely missing factors which have periodicities much greater than a century.

Fine. We got that covered, too.

In this analysis the authors have been able to provide evidence that the mid 20th century had far more extreme conditions than any subsequent time:

The two researchers report that with respect to all discrete five-year periods (pentads) between 1950 and 2004, "the 2000-04 pentad has the second longest mean predicted melt duration on Novaya Zemlya (after 1950-54), and the third longest on Svalbard (after 1950-54 and 1970-74) and Severnaya Zemlya (after 1950-54 and 1955-59) [italics added]," which findings clearly reveal the 1950-54 pentad to have experienced the longest melt season of the past 55 years on all three of the large Eurasian Arctic ice caps.

In spite of almost everything we have heard from climate alarmists over the past two decades about global warming becoming ever more intense, especially in the Arctic, conditions during the middle of the past century seem to have been even more extreme in this respect than they have been at any subsequent time, especially on these three major ice caps and their associated glaciers.
Italics from the analysis. Bold mine.
 
#24 ·
FeXL, most of the real zealots are dealing with their own personal histories, not the history of the world: "In all my 33 years I've never seen anything like this!"
 
#25 ·
Holy smokes, take a day off, galavantin' all over the province, free lunch from a fellow artist/photographer (thank you again!), beer & BS, gossiping about ehMac & the research world explodes!

Background: When I was in university, I had the privilege of taking a couple of topics courses from Archie Stalker, now deceased & formerly of the Geological Survey of Canada (fantastic Quaternary scientist). He was the kind of old school, hands on researcher that would tell you to lick you finger & stick it in the sediment you analyzing, then place it in your mouth & feel the texture. You could always tell if the sample was a paleosol, a lacustrine sediment, a clay or something else :eek: just by putting it in your mouth. Very cool.

He had personally hiked & mapped more of southern Alberta than anyone else before or since. Hard to keep up with him, even at 65.

At any rate, soils. A brief analysis of a paper published in Quaternary Research wherein the authors analyze soils in the Italian Alps & conclude that the Roman Warm Period & the Medieval Warm Period were both warmer & longer than the current warming period.

Among a number of other interesting findings, Giraudi determined that between about 200 BC and AD 100 -- i.e., during the Roman Warm Period -- "soils developed in areas at present devoid of vegetation and with permafrost," indicative of the likelihood that temperatures at that time "probably reached higher values than those of the present [italics added]." He also concluded that "analogous conditions likely occurred during the period of [the] 11th-12th centuries AD, when a soil developed on a slope presently characterized by periglacial debris," while noting that "in the 11th-12th centuries AD, frost weathering processes were not active and, due to the higher temperatures than at present [italics added] or the longer duration of a period with high temperatures [italics added], vegetation succeeded in colonizing the slope." He also determined that "the phase of greatest glacial expansion (Little Ice Age) coincides with a period characterized by a large number of floods in the River Po basin," and that "phases of glacial retreat [such as occurred during the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods] correlate with periods with relatively few floods in the River Po basin."

This study provides a double refutation of the climate-alarmist claim that late 20th-century temperatures were the warmest of the past two millennia. And it demonstrates that in this part of Europe, cooler periods have generally experienced less flooding than have warmer periods.
Italics from the analysis, bold mine.

Also wanted to give credit where credit is due:

In a sense, I'm glad all these warmists have come out with their claims about AGW. The opportunity provided has been a wonderful impetus to research the truth about the complexity of global warming & all the natural causes & cycles contained therein.

Just wanted to say, thx!
 
#26 ·
moving past the google wars and it's google link duels.

It seems the much celebrated anti climate change champion and scientist, is in a heap of trouble, once again.

Andrew Weaver Sues Tim Ball for Libel

University of Victoria Professor Andrew Weaver, the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis, has filed suit for libel against freelance climate change denier Tim Ball.

The suit (attached below) arises from an article that Ball penned for the right-wingy Canada Free Press website, which has since apologized to Weaver for its numerous inaccuracies and stripped from its publicly available pages pretty much everything that Ball has ever written.

In the article, Ball, a former geography professor at the University of Winnipeg with an indifferent academic record and a lifetime peer-reviewed literature output of just four articles (none of them in atmospheric physics), assailed Weaver as uninformed about climate, unqualified to teach and compromised by his lavish funding, accusations for which he offered no proof whatever.

Weaver, a member of the Royal Society of Canada who has authored more than 190 papers, was also a lead author on three of the four reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climage Change (IPCC), and is lined up as a lead author on the fifth. He's also won pretty much all the academic and teaching awards that are available to a Canadian professor who has not yet had his 50th birthday. Ball, famously slow to notice the obvious, apparently didn't realize that he was overmatched.

Of course, it's not the first time. Ball sued University of Lethbridge Professor Dan Johnson in October 2006 over imagined slights in a letter to the editor that Johnson had written to the Calgary Herald. When both Johnson and the Herald filed a devastating Statements of Defence, Ball turned tail and ran.

But regardless that the suit had exposed the numerous falsehoods that once coloured Balls resume - and regardless that a University of Calgary audit confirmed that Ball had been accepting money that had been sluiced through a university slush fund that had been set up to conceal the money's oil industry origins, Ball has continued to write and speak, claiming some higher knowledge of the workings of climate change - actually, of the lack of climate change.

Suddenly, however, he appears to have gone quiet.
source
 
#29 ·
Another dismissive wave of macfury's hand.

It's amusing to see this reduced to simply, "two academics attacking each others credentials"...

I see someone who apparently is a notable 'scientist' making some very untrue statements about another he disagrees with.

But it's really news when a scientist who supports climate change theories is taken to task for something that is reported as untrue.

I think you should post another "keep digging a hole' post to smooth this one over.
 
#28 ·
Just one more crack in the warmists theory of AGW causing severe weather. It apparently doesn't.

Magnetic Polar Shifts Causing Massive Global Superstorms

Superstorms can also cause certain societies, cultures or whole countries to collapse. Others may go to war with each other.

(CHICAGO) - NASA has been warning about it…scientific papers have been written about it…geologists have seen its traces in rock strata and ice core samples…

Now "it" is here: an unstoppable magnetic pole shift that has sped up and is causing life-threatening havoc with the world's weather.

Forget about global warming—man-made or natural—what drives planetary weather patterns is the climate and what drives the climate is the sun's magnetosphere and its electromagnetic interaction with a planet's own magnetic field.

When the field shifts, when it fluctuates, when it goes into flux and begins to become unstable anything can happen. And what normally happens is that all hell breaks loose.

Magnetic polar shifts have occurred many times in Earth's history. It's happening again now to every planet in the solar system including Earth.

The magnetic field drives weather to a significant degree and when that field starts migrating superstorms start erupting.

The superstorms have arrived

The first evidence we have that the dangerous superstorm cycle has started is the devastating series of storms that pounded the UK during late 2010.
Emphasis mine.

Magnetic Polar Shifts Causing Massive Global Superstorms
 
#31 ·
stop going in circles macfury. The irony of you pulling your 'nothing to see here' when a news article points out something not very flattering to your position is quite amusing.

Timothy Ball has been referenced many times here for the anti climate changers. He's been outed as a liar and a fraud.

And this is somehow, not relevant or, the usual dismissive hand of macfury, 'nothing to see here'.

That's twice in one day my friend. Nice try.
 
#36 ·
Only if we can also agree that restoring the Maunder Minimum and the Medieval Warming Period has shattered the Michael Mann hockey stick beyond any chance of repair.

Course selling AGW to someone who spent his day shoveling snow, is a very hard sell indeed.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top