Thanks for the link.

The Russians are building 5000 new bunkers in Moscow that should be completed by 2012.


Plus there is the major underground complex in the Ural mountains that's being build now for decades..
http://viewzone2.com/yamantaux.html

'Doomsday' vault opens its doors
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7264758.stm

They know something that they're not telling to avoid panic.

global warming is kinda a misnomer, I prefer climate change...

I mentioned Latif and multi-decadal oscillations, so it seems relevant to mention a recent prediction by one of the few anthropogenic global warming critics who is publishing papers that can actually be peer reviewed.

The fact that this global warming critic, Syun-Ichi Akasofu, makes an actual prediction is crucial, because science culture works by making predictions, that can then be confirmed or refuted thru experiments and measurements.

This is the prediction - that during the next ten years we will see the temperatures drop from their current rising arc. Take a look at the illustration, it does a pretty good job of presenting his model.

http://www.reportingclimatescience.c...predicted.html

Theres a following prediction, which is that the 4 degree c rise predicted by the IPCC by 2100 will not occur, but instead a .5 c rise will occur. Since most of us will be dead by then, it's hardly a prediction of any use.

However, if, as this guy predicts, the temperature starts to fall or even stay flat in the next ten years, perhaps multi-decadal oscillations will carry enough warmth down into the oceans (hopefully without destanilizing the clathrates, but thats another issue) to counteract the fossil carbon dioxide.

Since there's nothing that can be done about fossil carbon dioxide anyway, another ten years hardly matters.

In ten years I predict that the price of oil will render much of these concerns moot.

I'm trying to extract from this an argument that you are making that I can respond to and follow with argument of my own, and not getting any sense that you yourself are presenting an argument that I can respond to.

I don't particularly care about the hockey stick, as far as I'm concerned dendrochronology is weak science, and I never refer to the hockey stick as a credible measurement, so I can't argue for the validity of the hockey stick as a visual representation of measurements.

As a set of measurements, the hockey stick has yet to be fully confirmed or refuted in the science literature, as far as I know. I await further peer review, but personally don't think dendrochronology is reliable.

The hockey stick graph has been used politically, but I'm not terribly interested in what politicians do, they are all corrupt. Altho, I think they were wrong to use it.

Science by definition is never settled, thats not how science works, so you'll never hear me argue that the science is "settled". The most that can be said is that anthropogenic global warming deniers are still very much in the minority, in terms of published papers.

If there was some particular thing that you personally wanted to debate?

I strongly agree that we need transparent fresh data gathering, and I strongly urge you to urge your side to spend the money to gather new measurements, and to make those measurements available transparently! I will on my part urge my side to do the same. In the strongest possible way.

Your last sentence doesn't make sense to me. If you have record cold, and you have record heat, and you average the data, and the data says it was a bit more hot than it was cold, thats what the data says, and your saying something seems off doesn't affect the math.

You will say "I don't trust the measurements". Okay, so get your side to analyze the measuring protocols and set up new measuring stations around the planet and test the measurements.

Because that's how science works. Your side has tons of money, you have the oil corporations behind you, spend some of it, and take new measurements, dont just bitch about it.

I'm not trying to present an argument, just get the warmist to agree there is a another side and it does deserve the respect of an asnwer, not the relentless rubbishing it gets - maybe not from you directly, but it's out there.
Agreed, but there just aren't that many reliable thermometers out there pre 1600's. The cheeky trick of the hockey stick was to use dendro right up this century, then slice on adjusted instrument data - and neither show the splice point nor show that dendro and instrument data diverge like crazy where both are available. Until Macintrye started picking over the hockey stick carefully, it was never presented by the AGW side as anything other than 100% reliable.

Good point. Peer review isn't possible without the data and metadata - yet they fought tooth and nail to make sure Macintyre didn't get the data. This I find deeply suspicious.

The trouble is, it wasn't just them - the IPCC and Hansen started to act less like scientists and more like politicans in their use of the graph.
Tell that to Al Gore or the commenters at the top of this thread. It's settled, and I'm a retarded big oil stooge for saying so.
No, it's a big subject, go read the source stuff yourself and decide for yourself. There's just so much to read and you are quite welcome to form your own opinion on it. The internet makes it so easy to go straight to the source on so many subjects all that anyone need do is decide to take the time go look.

Start here:-

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

http://climateaudit.org/

Sadly its the AGW side who fight tooth and nail to keep "their" data secret. And by "their" I mean the data collected by publicly funded research.

Exactly my point it wasn't "a bit more hot" it was the most hottest ever. What about those years where we had hot winters AND hot summers? Surely hot + hot would be more than hot + cold?

And start now from year zero with all those stations when plenty already exist? Why can't we share "yours" - you know, the ones we buy via our taxes?
If only. the IPCC collects money by the truckload and big oil long ago became big energy and worked out there's MORE money on your side of the fence.

Exactly where is all this big oil money? Watts is a retired TV weatherman, Macintrye a retired mining geologist, Bastardi a weatherman, Corbyn a weatherman currently beating the MET office and their 33million pound computer with a PC.

Sorry for the Fisking style response, lots to cover :)

It snowed in Los Angeles yesterday, it was interesting seeing palm trees covered in snow. Every year it gets colder here and I've been looking at weather data on weatherunderground.com and in the past 4 years the winters in southern California keep getting colder and colder. I think this global warming thing is political and a bunch of bullshit

Not so much fresh data as rating the current data collection - and watts is already doing it.

http://www.surfacestations.org/

Him and his team of volunteers are visiting every surface temp station and photographing and rating it. With so much urbanisation happening in the US many temp stations have had whole towns grow up around them or seen grass airstrips turn into international airports. Rather than just guess at the effect, this lot are rating each station.

Beacuse the US has so many stations it can have a big impact on the global average. This data is used by Hansen in GISStemp. Hottest ever.

And all done by volunteers, not a drop of big oil money in sight.

well, if your side pulls it together to conduct investigations, one of the things that I hope comes from it is the development of a new protocol that makes it possble for raw data from as many measureing stations as america controls to be transparently available.

that will make the science stronger.

but, we also need to place hundreds of thousands of new measuring stations around the planet, all connected to the net and generating open source data. we should do it fast, and pay for it without complaining.

because this is a pascal's wager kind of problem. if you are right, and a catastrophe is not happening, a billion or 5 or 50 spent on science is just a tiny fraction of GDP, and having a well measured planet will be useful info for agriculture and industry. so, there's no real loss.

but if a catastrophe is going to happen, the sooner we know, the better, and the better information we have, the more likley we are to be ahead of it when it happens.

besides, everything we would have to do to adapt to severe global warming we are going to be forced to do by the coming decades of expensive and then very expensive oil anyway.

Watts Up With That Simon Scans is that you are a fucking Fox News Brainwashed Robot in desperate need of one of these:

http://www.monkeydungeon.com/images/...%20webbing.gif

DAMN.. there's no such a thing like peoples influence on global warming.

Check the geological history.. there always been changes of temperatures in whole world (it's beacuse space radiation from the sun and changing earth magnetism and others). There were ice ages and hot ages in 4,5 billion eyars earth history.

"global warming" politics was only to take money from selling co2 contracts

THERES NO SCIENCE PROOF for global warning :)

But there are science proofs that average temperature on earth is dynamic.

Even taking into account that English seems to be your second language I doubt that there is any science proof that you have a fucking brain.

Arctic sea ice in december 2010, last month, was the lowest it has ever been in the satellite observation record.

Not proof of anything, just a datapoint, but a curiousity and something to watch over the next decade.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

The arctic oscillation is a type of wind current, kinda like a jet stream that circles the north pole.

http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/patterns/...cillation.html

You are to a large degree making my central point - Shouting down dissent with insults rather than engaging in the argument is not productive nor justified. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALALA don't listen to him" Is this the reasoned response of the pro science side?

Call me what you like, if you can't even be bothered to try to win it with reason I'm not that fussed.

Bill mentions the sea ice stats, rightly so. And here's WUWT take on it.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/05/sea-ice-news-33/

Not much suppression of the wrong kind of data going on here, and certainly no personal attacks. Now remind me again, which side are the brainwashed robots?

I'm indifferent to this topic, but was curious to find out what some of the people (using last winter's "It's fucking cold, so where's this global warming" argument) thought about this summer's record temperatures?

record temperatures since we have been tracking for the last 100 years or so...


hate to break this to you but this planet and the sun have much larger cycles than that.

I'm fully aware of that, but thank you for the smart-ass reply. If you could read .. err, comprehend my first post, I'm more interested in hearing from the people who dismiss climate change when it's cold outside.

Again, I have no opinion about it ... Don't claim to be nearly as intelligent as some of you think you are. Just curious.

its equally as wrong to believe that a hot summer proves global warming as it is to assume a cold winter debunks it

my opinion is to look at hard evidence and examine how the ice caps are melting... that's all the proof i need that the climate is definitely changing

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

there's a climate change for sure and objectively speaking. We're the closest country to Antarctica and every single year for the last 10-15 years the gap between extremes is getting bigger. Every summer is hotter than the previous one, every winter is colder. We're having cities listed as having sub-tropical weather where it snowed this year for the first time ever. Cities with an average temperature of 11º Celsius (in winter) reached -14º C (6.8 Fahrenheit). We're having a polar wave right now with weather like we never saw before. So you can tell whatever you want, but objectively there's a big change in temperature and climate

There's a rule - "weather is not climate" - that applies.

So, record temperatures are consistent with the models, but not a proof.

A few years from now we will see how these temperature datapoints look, wether they continue to be consistent, or not.

Even tho, it won't be a proof. It's arguably not possible to produce even statistical proofs with decades of measurements in a very complex system like a planets weather.

And probably never possible to produce a proof in the sense that most deniers would accept, a proof with the absolute replicability of, say, our gravitational acceleration.

This just in...Lodys has now patented the process of Global Warming and as such, any use of the terms Global Warming and Climate Change are now protected as Intellectual Property..

:pimp

well, there's another rule which overrule yours: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. just sayin' :winkwink:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.gif

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.gif

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A3.gif

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.gif

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.E.gif

You may want to rethink the term "idiot" here..

Not quite sure what your point is?

And also, just in case some people forgot, "CLIMATE" is not the same thing as "WEATHER".

The AVERAGE temperature of the earth is warming up. Warmer average temperatures mean more powerful Hurricanes, expanding oceans, more floods and melting polar ice, among dozens of other things.

And of course Man is the #1 reason for climate change / global warming. We are burning more fossil fuels generating more green house gasses. Yes Volcanos and other natural phenomena contribute to this, but the man-made pollution is the only thing we can control.

pretty much everyone who is discrediting global warming in this thread might as well get a tattoo on their forehead that says 'Idiot"

that if the weather changes, you can call it any way you want, the effects will be the same no matter how you call it. It's just a semantic distinction, nothing else. It's like the city I mentioned which has sub-tropical climate. Yeah sure, but still they had snow.

Or like Paraguay: they have an incredibly torrid climate, totally unbearable. Now they're going crazy because they need stoves for the first time ever and they aren't used to cold temperatures. So yes, they're a tropical country, but "the duck" is freezing cold :2 cents:

Still not sure i get your point.

I see this debate as having roughly two sides - there's the science, which few people seem to understand, and then there's the religious politics, which is where most people center their rhetoric.

Arguing from beliefs, as it were. Expressing their politico-religious affiliation.

I personally find the science fascinating, thats the point of view i like to promote, since almost nobody does, here, or anywhere else.

I get the impression you are saying duck law proves global warming is happening?