|
|
A few days ago a news stroke the globe about a (more than) 40 km long sheet of ice getting off the antarctic shore and leaving naked stones that had been covered by ice during thousands of years.
Should we care about that or is it a natural event that sheets of ice get unattached from shore from time to time? after all ice is continuously produced by falling snow at the pole and that ice, growing grater and grater with time, has to go somewhere, dont you think so?
I think it is a very big problem.
I don't know much about how much ice is knocked off every year, but I do know a little bit about the ice melting, and it's a problem.
A lot of our heat is reflected back into space by our snow/ice. So, as the snow/ice keeps melting away, our planet is actually heating up, and destroying our ozone layer from the inside out. You are correct, this melting snow has to go somewhere. This is the second bad part of global warming. (I'm not entirely sure on this one, and I don't think anyone is) They say once all the ice is melted, most of our planet will be under water, though I disagre with that. I agree our sea levels will rise, but not enough to put as much of earth under water as some scientist say it would. But I could be wrong. Now as the ice melts away, we go into the seocnd bad part of global warming, which is replacing that snow/ice back where it belongs, which is called the Ice Age.
So yes it is a very big problem if the ice continues to melt.
As ghost rider says, the ice cover in the antarctic is reflective, and bounces light into space which helps dissipate some heat from the Earth. There's a positive feedback loop as the icecaps melt, since that will tend to make the Earth a little hotter which will lead to more melting...
It has nothing to do with the ozone layer, though. The ozone layer depletion is due to the presence of chemicals in the upper atmosphere that react with ozone. Some of those also happen to be greenhouse gasses, but it's coincidence.
No scientists think the Earth will flood completely if the caps melt. That would be an enormous amount of water. Scientists can predict with some accuracy how high sea level will rise, and it will probably only be a few feet in any of our lifetimes. That's still enough to cause trouble in some parts of the World.
I don't know all the science behind it, but don't most (if not all) ocean currents rely on a certain proportion of salt and fresh water? So, if a vast amount of ice melts, that sends more fresh water into the currents, causing them to change, which could drastically change global weather patterns/climate. I'm sure there's a lot more to it than that. If that's wrong (very possible lol), I still think it's a big deal that a large amount of ice is melting...ice that hasn't melted in our recorded history. Along with the permafrost melting.
I'm pretty sure the Earth won't flood completely rofl...But it is a valid concern that many coastal cities and inhabited islands are going to be dealing with some crazy things soon enough if the trend continues. There are already islands where the natives are recording half their land basically disappearing underwater in a fairly short amount of time.
There's also the issues with how sunlight is reflected by the ice caps and all that good stuff.
Yeah, it's a concern that should be dealt with or at least an effort made to deal with it. Not that you can solve the problem, as it is a naturally occurring process of the planet. I do think we've somehow sped it up a tad bit 
Watch the movie "the day before tomorrow" after viewing it, you should be able to answer your own question. I won't go into all the scientific stuff, but yes you should be worried, very worried. If it is not slowed it will affect the entire global climate, and the way we live. The movie is not something like a national geographic episode, but everything the movie covers could very well happen. And it also starts off with the exact thing that you are asking about. A sheet of ice the size of hose island broke off. Not to mention it wasn't a pretty bad movie either.
Don't believe everything you see on TV. That movie wasn't realistic, but the truth of the situation is still plenty worrisome without Hollywood dramatics.
Water so it sinks at the poles when it gets cold. Arctic waters sink and travel along the sea floor to the Gulf of Mexico where they surface, mix, and head back towards the arctic on the surface. That conveyor belt brings Gulf warmth and moisture to the NE USA and Europe.
Arctic melting decreases the salinity of the water (the caps are mostly freshwater). The meltwater is freshwater so it's buoyant and won't sink (saltwater is more dense than freshwater), interrupting the conveyor and stopping the gulf stream. It can happen, and it might happen, but probably not within the lifetime of anyone sitting here. It'll also shut off gradually, I believe, unlike in the movie.
| Chris24 wrote: | | Watch the movie "the day before tomorrow" after viewing it, you should be able to answer your own question. I won't go into all the scientific stuff, but yes you should be worried, very worried. If it is not slowed it will affect the entire global climate, and the way we live. The movie is not something like a national geographic episode, but everything the movie covers could very well happen. And it also starts off with the exact thing that you are asking about. A sheet of ice the size of hose island broke off. Not to mention it wasn't a pretty bad movie either. |
About 1% of that movie had any relevance to science =/ Not to mention the things that happened in the movie were incredibly too dramatic. I'm pretty sure not a single scientist is predicting hardly anything of that nature in such a short span of time. Obviously it was a Hollywood movie and I know you recognize that. But I don't think it's wise to base any opinion of that movie or any Hollywood movie for that matter.
| Chris24 wrote: | Watch the movie "the day before tomorrow" after viewing it, you should be able to answer your own question. I won't go into all the scientific stuff
|
Why not? This is a science forum, after all..Wasn't the film called 'The Day AFTER Tomorrow' ?
| Quote: | The movie is not something like a national geographic episode, but everything the movie covers could very well happen.
|
Really? You think so? I think that most scientists would disagree;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After_Tomorrow#Science_portrayed_in_the_movie
| nisibdv wrote: | A few days ago a news stroke the globe about a (more than) 40 km long sheet of ice getting off the antarctic shore and leaving naked stones that had been covered by ice during thousands of years.
Should we care about that or is it a natural event that sheets of ice get unattached from shore from time to time? after all ice is continuously produced by falling snow at the pole and that ice, growing grater and grater with time, has to go somewhere, dont you think so? |
Of course we should care. Its our Earth and we are destructing it very quickly with high probability that all of this things happening are due to us.
| Ghost Rider103 wrote: | I think it is a very big problem.
I don't ...
...one is) They say once all the ice is melted, most of our planet will be under water, though I disagre with that. I agree our sea levels will rise, but not enough to put as much of earth under water as some scientist say it would. But I could be wrong. Now as the ice melts away, we go into the seocnd bad part of global warming, which is replacing that snow/ice back where it belongs, which is called the Ice Age.
So yes it is a very big problem if the ice continues to melt. |
Firstly scientist don't say that of the current land most will be flooded. (3/4 of the planet is already covered in water remember? So maybe someone was playing with words). But just think of it. If the whole of antarctica and the north pole will melt. That will be a lot of water and a lot of land is just above sealevel so a lot of land will sink.
Accordig to the Australian Climate Institute the sea level could rise as mucha as 1,4 meters. Wich would be a disaster for bangladesh it's almost flooded every year and there life a whole lot of people. About: 150,448,340 according to wikipedia 2007 estimate. so where do 150*10^6 people go to when their homes are flooded? The West? Who already complain about the amount of imigrants.
| Gagnar The Unruly wrote: | As ghost rider says, the ice cover in the antarctic is reflective, and bounces light into space which helps dissipate some heat from the Earth. There's a positive feedback loop as the icecaps melt, since that will tend to make the Earth a little hotter which will lead to more melting...
It has nothing to do with the ozone layer, though. The ozone layer depletion is due to the presence of chemicals in the upper atmosphere that react with ozone. Some of those also happen to be greenhouse gasses, but it's coincidence.
No scientists think the Earth will flood completely if the caps melt. That would be an enormous amount of water. Scientists can predict with some accuracy how high sea level will rise, and it will probably only be a few feet in any of our lifetimes. That's still enough to cause trouble in some parts of the World. |
Do you call thet a posotive feedback?
How do you know that? What are your sources?
anyway about greenhouse effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#Positive_feedback_and_runaway_greenhouse_effect
For the last bit yes true I think no true scientist would say that since a little bit of simple math will disprove this.
| Chris24 wrote: | | Watch the movie "the day before tomorrow" after viewing it, you should be able to answer your own question. I won't go into all the scientific stuff, but yes you should be worried, very worried. If it is not slowed it will affect the entire global climate, and the way we live. The movie is not something like a national geographic episode, but everything the movie covers could very well happen. And it also starts off with the exact thing that you are asking about. A sheet of ice the size of hose island broke off. Not to mention it wasn't a pretty bad movie either. |
Of course this is a hollywood film so a lot of things are dramatized and of course this are over-the-top-worse-case-scenarios. But still yes the movie has some truth to it. That might happen, altough at a much slower rate. You had enough time to crawl away from New York to savety.
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | Do you call thet a posotive feedback? |
I think I called it 'positive' feedback.
| Quote: | | How do you know that? What are your sources? |
I'm an educated citizen of Earth. Do you believe that my statements aren't based on accepted fact?
| Quote: | | should we care about antartic ice melting? |
No. 
| BigMo420 wrote: | | Quote: | | should we care about antartic ice melting? |
No. |
Hope you don't live in Holland. ^_^;
The sea levels are estimated to rise 20 ft if all of the land-based ice melts on Antartica. This would create a mass exodus in largely populated areas such as India. Think the big refugee movements in Africa are bad? Imagine the same thing, but 100x as large.
ok, so then how about this statement as a fact. IF we keep doing what we are doing to the earth then we are screwed...Fact? yes
| Chris24 wrote: | | ok, so then how about this statement as a fact. IF we keep doing what we are doing to the earth then we are screwed...Fact? yes |
No - too simplistic. Let's look at it in a bit more realistic fashion by looking at some facts...
1) The planet is heating up. This is partly 'natural' - natural variability in the climate and temp due to factors beyond out control. There is bugger-all we can do about this. The heating is also, however, partly man-made (anthropogenic). We can, obviously, do something about this.
2) Climate models are pretty inaccurate beasties. This is partly because they are not yet well developed enough but mostly because they are modelling an inherently chaotic system (the weather). Some people think the models will develop to be fairly accurate - I am not so sure.
3) We can predict, within a large range of error, what rise in temperature there will be over the next century. It will be somewhere between 2 and 6 degrees (C) in most models. Temperatures have risen about 0.6 degrees over the last century.
4) There are several possible 'tipping points' which could lead to a more catastrophic climate scenario. Examples include the death of the rainforest and boiling-off of methane hydrates at the bottom of the sea. These events could lead to a runaway effect which raises the temperature by 10 degrees or more. This is the doomsday scenario and would certainly lead to a global extinction event on a massive scale. Humans would almost certainly survive but the world would be very different.
Those are the basic facts. The weather/climate scenarios which will result from these facts are less easy to state.
I'm not so sure that the ice caps melting would be a bad thing, other than the land flooding and the ozone layer being destroyed. Which is a bad thing, i guess, but if you look on the bright side, there will be a lot of fresh water mixed into the ocean from the ice melting. This would make the salt water dilute, and may make it much easier for the salt to be sifted from the water, thus solving the worldwide problem of only having 30% of the water on earth being fresh.
| Ireon wrote: | | I'm not so sure that the ice caps melting would be a bad thing, other than the land flooding and the ozone layer being destroyed. Which is a bad thing, i guess, but if you look on the bright side, there will be a lot of fresh water mixed into the ocean from the ice melting. This would make the salt water dilute, and may make it much easier for the salt to be sifted from the water, thus solving the worldwide problem of only having 30% of the water on earth being fresh. |
Well, leave aside for a moment the millions of people who may well die due to the ocean level rising..
What makes you think that processing sea-water with a slightly lower salinity is any different than processing current sea-water? Surely the sensible thing to do would be to collect the ice before it melts if that is your goal - that way you can melt it and get water with negligable salinity....
It should also be pointed out that the icecaps melting has nothing to do with the ozone hole... oh, wait, it was, in the third post on this topic.
| Ireon wrote: | | I'm not so sure that the ice caps melting would be a bad thing, other than the land flooding and the ozone layer being destroyed. Which is a bad thing, i guess, but if you look on the bright side, there will be a lot of fresh water mixed into the ocean from the ice melting. This would make the salt water dilute, and may make it much easier for the salt to be sifted from the water, thus solving the worldwide problem of only having 30% of the water on earth being fresh. |
Aside from what Bikerman said (and Gagnar too), man... there's a lot of shortsightedness going on right there.
Oceanic life is, by and large, fairly dependent upon particular salinity ranges; flooding the oceans with fresh water and altering salinity will wreak havoc on osmoregulation for everything from bacteria straight through to fish.
Ocean currents and layers are highly dependent upon differences in temperature and salinity, both of which influence density. Melting polar ice causes changes in both of these, which could change how water (and thereby nutrients) cycle through the oceans, which would lead to many ecosystems collapsing; particularly the very important upwelling currents that bring deep ocean nutrients to the surface, where they're utilized by all kinds of organisms and are highly productive regions.
To put this in an anthropocentric light so that we can understand how it would affect us, and is therefore somehow more important, it could lead to the collapse of all kinds of fishery industries, from, say shrimp through things like sardines and tuna. This means hungrier people, people without jobs, etc.
That only 30% of the Earth's water is fresh is NOT a problem. It's more than enough. We do, however choose to live in places where it's not readily available... that's just us making bad choices, not a real world problem It's also not that the supply of fresh water is limited, it's that we're polluting what supplies exist in our shortsightedness and arrogance. There's be a lot more drinkable fresh water out there if we weren't pumping out excrement and toxic chemicals into it.
I am worrying, melting ice, more water... less land, simple equasion, or not?
| tijn01 wrote: | | I am worrying, melting ice, more water... less land, simple equasion, or not? |
Not.
It depends which ice melts. Here's a simple experiment you can do for yourself.
Take a glass of water. Stick a couple of ice cubes in it. Measure the level. Let the ice melt. Any difference?
If floating ice melts then there is no change in sea level - the worry is when the ice on land melts.
I think people should definetly worry about this since its a big issue that effects our future. 
| l3370591 wrote: | | I think people should definetly worry about this since its a big issue that effects our future. |
It'll affect your pocket book much more than it will affect anything else. I should be selling carbon credits. What a racket!
| BigMo420 wrote: | | l3370591 wrote: | | I think people should definetly worry about this since its a big issue that effects our future. |
It'll affect your pocket book much more than it will affect anything else. I should be selling carbon credits. What a racket! |
No, you should be reading the peer-reviewed articles I supplied which you wanted. Finished yet?
| Bikerman wrote: | | BigMo420 wrote: | | l3370591 wrote: | | I think people should definetly worry about this since its a big issue that effects our future. |
It'll affect your pocket book much more than it will affect anything else. I should be selling carbon credits. What a racket! |
No, you should be reading the peer-reviewed articles I supplied which you wanted. Finished yet? |
You should not be telling me what to do. That aside, I have been reading the articles. I find them lacking and un-convincing. I am not buying into the rhetoric. Sorry to disappoint, but my decisions have been made looking at as many aspects of the situation as I can find.
Are YOU finished yet?
| BigMo420 wrote: | You should not be telling me what to do. That aside, I have been reading the articles. I find them lacking and un-convincing. I am not buying into the rhetoric. Sorry to disappoint, but my decisions have been made looking at as many aspects of the situation as I can find.
Are YOU finished yet? |
Nope, I'm not.
You complained that you could find no peer-reviewed papers that showed a human component to global warming. I supplied you with a fairly comprehensive list. You now say that they are lacking and unconvincing. In what way? If you think you are able to criticise peer-reviewed papers by climatologists then let's have the criticisms.
Personally I don't think you have much of a clue about the science involved and I would be amazed if you had anything useful to say on the matter, but I'm always open to persuasion - so let's hear your critique. What elements of the Hadley climate model do you find unconvincing? What errors do you think they have made?
Alternatively what peer-reviewed work convinces you that AGW does not exist? Give me some examples.
| Bikerman wrote: | | peer-reviewed papers that showed a human component to global warming |
You're right, my bad.
I was referring to peer-reviewed papers that showed a viable human component to global warming. And by peers, I didn't mean those getting the same grants as the ones pushing the MMGW BS.
| BigMo420 wrote: | | And by peers, I didn't mean those getting the same grants as the ones pushing the MMGW BS. |
So you don't want peer-reviewed papers, you want papers by people who agree with you? Hmm...that might be tricky.
You need to understand how the peer-review process works - obviously you don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
Most of the papers I referenced for you are published in the professional journals - the referees are impartial experts in climatology who are not paid to 'toe a party line' - they are paid to spot errors in the basic science. Peer-review is not perfect and errors can slip through. It is, however, the best mechanism we have to ensure that what is published is factual and based on good science. If you want to produce evidence to support your contentions then it should be peer-reviewed if it is to be taken seriously.
| Bikerman wrote: | | So you don't want peer-reviewed papers, you want papers by people who agree with you? |
Wow.
I want research from scientists who are not getting paid to preach the GW Gospel or the lack thereof.
Is that so difficult for you to understand? Then here: Let me give you a very basic example...
This whole thing is primarily a result of liberal interests trying to foist the blame for something practically non-existent on the opposition, creating a popular wedge. It was intended to strengthen their control, and hence, profits.
It's turned political because, well, it IS political. It's never been scientific.
Here AlGore tell you to buy carbon credits:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/1
Here's where he tells you to go:
http://www.climatecrisis.net/
Once again, his own carbon credit money sequestering company is Generation Investment Management....
Understand? I don't want paid shills. I want un-biased research. Research that looks at facts, not conjecture, hype and alarmism.
Got any?
You are getting a bit confused here. Al Gore is a politician not a scientist. I haven't seen his film or read his comments on the issue. Neither have I referenced any work that is produced for or by him.
The links to the Hadley Centre are links to papers by scientists - specifically climate scientists. They are not paid to espouse a particular viewpoint - they are paid to do basic scientific research into climate.
If you want 'facts' then the place to look is the reference I already provided. Unfortunately it seems the facts are not to your liking and you therefore either ignore them or call them 'unconvincing'.
I understand that reading scientific papers is a technical exercise that requires a certain scientific knowledge and not everyone is up to the task. That's why I provided a link to the Hadley Climate model which is written for the non-scientist. It is based on the work of scientists but written in a way which the average person can understand.
In case you missed it, here it is again:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/
This is not hype, conjecture or alarmism, it is basic science - that is what you wanted and that is what I have provided.
| Bikerman wrote: | | You are getting a bit confused here. |
Better back up a bit there, cowboy... YOU are the one that's confused:
| Quote: | | Al Gore is a politician not a scientist. |
Thank you for making my point, I'm glad you finally get it. Al Gore manufactured GW because he failed as a politician. Man Made Global Warming is nothing but a cash cow based on "junk science".
It seems like facts can only be interpreted one way. Why is there an issue on this? Who misinterpreting science?
The idea that there is a “denial industry” doesn’t hold up to logic. Here’s how policies that adhere to conventional theories about global warming benefit most vested interests:
* Insurance companies get to charge higher premiums
* Fossil fuel companies get to keep prices (and profits) high
* Politicians get to enact new taxes
* Public sector entities get new taxes to fund their pensions
* Environmental organizations get more funds
* Left wing activists get a new basis to attack private ownership
* Labor unions get more jobs, especially in the public sector
* Lawyers get a new basis to file lawsuits
* Wall street gets to trade emissions credits
* Climate researchers get more grant requests funded
* United Nations bureaucrats get a guaranteed revenue stream
With pretty much everyone winning in this scenario, apart from billions of ordinary consumers, millions of small businesses, and the economic aspirations of emerging nations - where is the denial industry? With virtually all powerful vested interests winning under the alarm scenario - it’s no wonder we aren’t seeing meaningful debate on this topic.
| BigMo420 wrote: | The idea that there is a “denial industry” doesn’t hold up to logic. Here’s how policies that adhere to conventional theories about global warming benefit most vested interests:
* Insurance companies get to charge higher premiums
* Fossil fuel companies get to keep prices (and profits) high
* Politicians get to enact new taxes
* Public sector entities get new taxes to fund their pensions
* Environmental organizations get more funds
* Left wing activists get a new basis to attack private ownership
* Labor unions get more jobs, especially in the public sector
* Lawyers get a new basis to file lawsuits
* Wall street gets to trade emissions credits
* Climate researchers get more grant requests funded
* United Nations bureaucrats get a guaranteed revenue stream
With pretty much everyone winning in this scenario, apart from billions of ordinary consumers, millions of small businesses, and the economic aspirations of emerging nations - where is the denial industry? With virtually all powerful vested interests winning under the alarm scenario - it’s no wonder we aren’t seeing meaningful debate on this topic. |
Good way of getting down to the nitty-gritty. Good job. There might be a climate issue, but it may not be human caused and it may not be as grave as some make it out to be.
What part of the Hadley report do you not understand? Can you read a simple graph?
I'm confused - you say you want science and not hype. I provide the science and you completely ignore it and concentrate on hype. What exactly do you want?
Al Gore is completely irrelevant to the science - as I have already said. He didn't 'manufacture' AGW - though he may well be seeking to profit from it - I simply don't care - it has nothing to do with the underlying science.
For someone who claims to be interested in the science you have provided no science at all, and ignored the science that has been provided...rather a dishonest stance I think.
| Bikerman wrote: | | I'm confused |
I understand you're confused. It's painfully obvious.
| Quote: | | What part of the Hadley report do you not understand? |
The part where climate models can predict the future. The IPCC itself identifies an error in the model, show in the latest report (AR4). The last subsection of the Technical Summary says, in full:
| Quote: | “Key Uncertainties:
Large uncertainties remain about how clouds might respond to global climate change. {8.6}” |
The IPCC couldn’t model how clouds respond to climate change, because they don’t. The truth is that climate changes in response to clouds.
| Quote: | | What part of the Hadley report do you not understand? |
The part where they try to discredit the scores of articles and hundreds of scientists who are calling this a bunch of hype.
For example, More than 400 scientists -- many of them members of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- challenge the claims of the leading global warming alarmist, former Vice President and now Nobel laureate Al Gore, said a report issued by the Republicans on the U.S. Senate's Environment and Public Works committee last month. Kailee Kreider, a spokeswoman for Mr. Gore, said there criticisms should be discounted because 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from the Exxon Mobil Corp. It's Mr. Gore who is the crook, says French physicist Claude Allegre in a new book. He's made millions in an eco-business based on phony science, Dr. Allegre charges. Mr. Gore isn't alone, says Weather Channel founder John Coleman: "Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming," Mr. Coleman wrote. "Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going...In time, in a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/temperatures_trending_cooler.html
Study Compares Global Warming Skeptics to defenders of U.S. slavery in 19th century (this is for real!)
Direct link to study published in the journal Climate Change http://www.springerlink.com/content/q5021x4506k0r622/
By Professor Marc Davidson of the philosophy department at the University of Amsterdam
Abstract Today, the United States is as dependent on fossil fuels for its patterns of consumption and production as its South was on slavery in the mid-nineteenth century. That US congressmen tend to rationalise fossil fuel use despite climate risks to future generations just as Southern congressmen rationalised slavery despite ideals of equality is perhaps unsurprising, then. This article explores similarities between the rationalisation of slavery in the abolition debates and the rationalisation of ongoing emissions of greenhouse gases in the US congressional debates on the Kyoto Protocol.
Excerpt: On the uncertain benefits of the abolition of slavery: "...the course of [the abolitionists] whose precipitate and ignorant zeal would overturn the fundamental institutions of society, uproar its peace and endanger its security, in pursuit of a distant and shadowy good, of which they themselves have formed no definite conception." (in: Simms 1852, p 9Cool Davidson compares this to the words of current US congressmen who mention the "inconclusive and often contradictory" nature of climate science. On the cost of change: "Their [the slaves'] value, at $400, average, (and they are now worth more than that,) would amount to upwards of 900 millions. The value of their annual increase, alone is 24 millions of dollars; so that to free them in 100 years, without the expense of taking them from the country, would require an annual appropriation of between 33 and 34 millions of dollars. The thing is physically impossible." (James Henry Hammond, senator of South Carolina, 1836) Davidson compares this to the often cited concerns that limiting greenhouse gas emissions will harm the US economy. The crux of Davidson's argument is that the US economy now relies on oil in much the same way as the economy of the Southern States relied on slaves 200 years ago – as a key source of energy.
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2008/01/rhetoric-of-climate-and-slavery.html
Below you can listen to MP2 of the Great Climate Debate between Marc Morano and Air American Host Thom Hartmann
Drag audio bar to 36:25 to begin his combative debate with Thom Hartmann about Senate Report of 400 Scientists
Click to Listen here: http://www.whiterosesociety.org/content/hartmann/HartmannShow-(10-1-2008)b.mp3
Drag audio bar to 36:25 to beginning of Morano interview
http://junkscience.com/blog/2008/01/11/the-great-climate-debate-morano-vs-air-america-host-listen-to-12-min-debate/
Morano Responds To Climate Alarmists’ Attempt To Critique Senate ‘Consensus Busters’ Report (January 10, 2008 letter published on NY Times Website)
Excerpt: First off, the well over 400-plus names (and still growing) scientists are not “all” of the skeptical scientists in the world; they are merely a sampling of scientists who spoke out recently. The report is also weighted to English speaking scientists; it does not pretend to capture all of the large amounts of skepticism growing around the world to the hyped “climate crisis.” (See Full Senate Report here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minor ity.SenateReport ) Second, you claim that there are a few scientists “who are flatly unqualified to make any pronouncements on climate science” because they do not meet your criteria or because the report has a few economists in it. Such charges are simply unsustainable. Do you hold the UN IPCC scientists to that same standard? Please take the time to read this excellent research by Climate Resistance revealing that the so-called “thousands” of scientists from the UN are made up of significant numbers of economists and engineers as well. http://www.climate-resistance.org/2007/12/physician-hea l-thyself.html After all, you could argue that half the climate change debate is premised on economics that falls under Stern Review-inspired “it’s cheaper to act now” than wait category. Also, the head of UN IPCC, Rajendra K. Pachauri, is an economist and engineer. It appears Nobel winner Pachauri would not meet your standards to comment on climate change. Pachauri’s training as an economist has not stopped the New York Times from erroneously referring to him as a “climatologist” (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/13/world/13nobel.html?_r =1&fta=y&oref=sloginExcer ) or the AP from referring to Pachauri as the “chief climate scientist” for the UN. See: http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2007/12/ 07/un_us_states_cities_can_impact_climate Are you going to chastise the NY Times and AP for referring to the “thousands” of UN experts as “scientists” as well? (Note: Many current and former members of the UN IPCC are featured in the Senate report of over 400.) Or do you only selectively “disqualify” scientists if they do not share your views? Third, your citation of Prof. Andrew Dessler’s articles at Grist is amusing. Dessler has monumentally embarrassed himself by recently claiming there were only two dozen scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears. Dessler is now trying desperately to salvage his unsupportable assertions over at Grist with increasingly shrill and comical posts. It is made clear you have not read the Senate report when you parrot Dessler’s claims that Dr. Christopher Castro “unabashedly and explicitly endorses the IPCC consensus.” If you took the time to read Castro’s entry in the Senate report you would find that even though he accepts the idea that mankind is responsible for most of the recent warming, he has serious doubts about future dire predictions of warming. Excerpt from report: Castro, who studied under skeptical climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. “agrees that ‘other possible forcings to the climate system besides CO2 (like land-use change, aerosols, etc.) are not accounted for well, if at all’ and “models are highly sensitive to parameterized processes, like clouds, convection, and radiation, and these processes can have significant impacts on their results.’” End excerpt. Remember, many skeptical scientists believe the Earth has already seen most of the warming impact of rising CO2, so agreeing that a 20th century CO2 rise has caused some warming is not the same as believing future catastrophic climate projections. Also, Dessler mocks a meteorologist for citing God as part of his belief that mankind is not causing a “climate crisis,” but Dessler completely ignores the scientific reasons the meteorologist presents. Be wary of critiques that do not publish the Senate Report’s full excerpt on the scientist being analyzed. Fourth, your cut and paste attack from Real Climate on award-winning physicist Claude Allegre and his colleague Vincent Courtillot is without merit. The propaganda team at RealClimate.org routinely ridicule scientists who dissent from their view of climate orthodoxy. An interesting note on Allegre is he recently converted from a believer in catastrophic climate change to a skeptic as new scientific studies debunked fears. See full report here: (includes many other scientist who reversed themselves on global warming as well) http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minor ity.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927B9303-802A-23AD-494B-DCCB 00B51A12 The Senate report of dissenting scientists has gained a giant foothold in the climate debate. For a sampling of the impact the report is having in redefining the climate debate, see here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minor ity.SenateReport Also note that this report goes way beyond scientists’ dissenting but includes numerous recent peer-reviewed studies debunking rising CO2 fears and Arctic and Greenland melting fears. 2008 is ushering in a truly new era in the climate debate. No longer will activists be able to claim that the “debate is over” or, as Naomi Oreskes once claimed, no peer-reviewed studies cast doubt on the “consensus.” For an insight into why there is a growing number of skeptical scientists worldwide, please read this article just up today by one of the Senate 400 plus scientists. It is written by Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review. See: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1309 (I hope you consider him “qualified” to speak on this issue) I urge everyone on this board to actually read the full Senate report (well over 80,000 words) and then re-evaluate your views. Full report available here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minor ity.SenateReport Sincerely, Marc Morano - U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/the-road-from-climate-science-to-climate-advocacy/#comment-6702
Former Radiochemist Alan Siddons of IceCap.US challenges CO2 = Warmer World Concept in NYT (Click on link to read actual climate debate on New York Times website!)
Excerpt: Unfortunately, Andrew, even your first proposition is unsound. “Carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping gas,” you say. Let’s make this simple. Energy from the sun heats the earth to a certain temperature. That heat then radiates to space. If any heat were being trapped it wouldn’t radiate into space. Thus there’d be a difference between the energy received and the energy emitted - the second would be less than the first. So here’s the kicker: satellites record no difference. Earth absorbs 240 watts per square meter from the sun, and earth emits 240 watts per square meter to space. There are no signs, signals or evidence that the earth or any of its atmospheric gases trap heat. A good analogy. Polar bears have body heat just like you do. But their body heat is trapped by fur and fat - so efficiently, in fact, that polar bears are nearly black to a thermal imager. They don’t radiate much heat. If carbon dioxide is to the earth what fur and fat are to a polar bear, the earth would be “darker” in infrared than it is. “Carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping gas” is therefore a demonstrably untrue statement. Back to square one.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/a-starting-point-for-productive-climate-discourse/#comment-7285
Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent now greater than last year
: (Click on link to see inconvenient chart!) Source of data from State of Canadian Cryosphere: http://www.socc.ca/seaice/seaice_current_e.cfm
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/01/northern-hemisphere-sea-ice-extent-now.html
Reuters at it again: Promotes Greenland Cherry Picking Study
Morano comments: Here we go again. First off, note they only go back 50 years. Had they gone back to 1930's and 40's it would be a different comparison. (See July 2007 Senate Report on Greenland: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=175B568A-802A-23AD-4C69-9BDD978FB3CD - A 2006 study found Greenland has cooled since the 1930's and 1940's, with 1941 being the warmest year on record. Another 2006 study concluded Greenland was as warm or warmer in the 1930’s and 40’s and the rate of warming from 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than the warming from 1995-2005.) The Reuters article below uses the following words: "perhaps;" "continued warming could threaten;" "probably." Plus there is the obligatory "if" and "then you can reach a point of no return." Alister Doyle of Reuters must be following a standard script for these articles, if, then, possibly, maybe, could, might and of course cherry picking the years. Surprisingly the article does note the warming abound 1940. (Note: Before 80% of man-made CO2 was in the atmosphere)
Article Excerpt: Hanna said that there was also a warm period around 1940 in Greenland -- but that warming was triggered by natural variations in the Arctic climate, perhaps shifts in ocean currents. This time, the Greenland warming fits a far broader trend across the planet." Morano comment: How do they know 1940 warm up was "natural variations" but today's recent warming "fits a far broader trend across the planet."
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-31415520080115?sp=true
Global warming protest in Maryland frosted with ‘heavy snowfall’(Can’t make this stuff up! Click on link for great photos. Self parody!)
Excerpt: It snowed, but they still came. A heavy snowfall blanketed a global warming protest outside the State House in Annapolis this morning, but it did not dampen the shouts of about 400 activists who urged lawmakers to pass the nation's toughest greenhouse gas control law. As supporters waved signs, chanted and banged drums, 18 legislators walked down a symbolic green carpet to sign up as co-sporsors to a bill that would mandate that all businesses in Maryland cut emissions of global warming pollution by 25 percent by 2020 and 90 percent by 2050. "We are going to pass this bill this year," said State Sen. Paul Pinsky, a Democrat from Prince George's County and chairman of the senate's environmental matters subcommittee. "We are not going to rest, we are not going to stop....We are going to keep going until we pass this bill."
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bay_environment/blog/2008/01/global_warming_protest_snowed.html
Oops! Study Finds global warming impact may be overstated !
Excerpt: Scientists have discovered that glaciers survived for hundreds of thousands of years during an era when crocodiles roamed the Arctic, reports Roger Highfield. The most pessimistic predictions of sea level rises as ice sheets are melted by global warming may have to be scaled back as a result of an extraordinary discovery that ice persisted when the Earth was much hotter than today. Scientists have discovered that glaciers survived for hundreds of thousands of years during an extraordinary era when crocodiles roamed the Arctic and the tropical Atlantic Ocean was as warm as human blood. They had thought that Earth was ice free during the so called Turonian period, a "super greenhouse world" between 93.5 million and 89.3 million years ago. But now evidence has been found of hothouse glaciers that persisted by studies of tiny plankton and other marine organisms. Large ice-sheets existed about 91 million years ago, during one of the warmest periods in the past 500 million years, an international team of scientists reports in Science. Professor Thomas Wagner, of Newcastle University, says: "Speculation about whether large ice caps could have formed during short periods of the Earth's warmest interval has a long history in geology and climate research, but there has never been final conclusive evidence. Our research from tropical marine sediments provides strong evidence that large ice sheets indeed did exist for short periods of the Cretaceous, despite the fact that the world was a much hotter place than it is today, or is likely to be in the near future.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=A1YourView&xml=/earth/2008/01/10/sciglacier110.xml
UK Science chief: Environmentalists 'keen to take us back to the 18th or even the 17th century'
Excerpt: Sir David King argues that aviation has been unfairly scapegoated. Photograph: Cate Gillon/Getty The scientist credited as being the first to convince Tony Blair of the urgency of the climate crisis has accused green activists of being Luddites who risk setting back the fight against global warming. In an interview with the Guardian today Sir David King, who stepped down last month after seven years as the government's chief scientific adviser, says any approach that does not focus on technological solutions to climate change - including nuclear power - is one of "utter hopelessness". He says: "There is a suspicion, and I have that suspicion myself, that a large number of people who label themselves 'green' are actually keen to take us back to the 18th or even the 17th century." He characterises their argument as "let's get away from all the technological gizmos and developments of the 20th century". "People say 'well, we'll just use less energy.' Come on," he says. "And then there's the real world, where everyone is aspiring to the sort of standard of living that we have, which is based on a large energy consumption."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/12/climatechange.carbonemissions1
Has the weather gone Hollywood? Media accused of promoting 'storm porn'
Excerpt: Has the weather gone Hollywood? In an effort to grab higher ratings and boost advertising in a fiercely competitive market, some television stations are being accused of exaggerating, dare we say hyping, their weather forecasts. Crippling ice storms, devastating tsunamis and powerful hurricanes enthral viewers like a drawn-out O.J. Simpson trial or the heart-wrenching coverage of
9/11. Hurricane Katrina had us mesmerized for weeks – and the ad revenue flowed. It used to be that weather forecasters were criticized for getting it wrong. Now, in true Chicken Little style, it's being suggested they're consistently overstating their predictions – the depth of snow, the severity of wind-chill factors – urging the audience to brace for the worst. David Phillips, senior climatologist for Environment Canada, calls it "storm porn."
http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/292152
Thorough Debunking of New Antarctic study claiming melting
Excerpt: A new study, much hyped by the media, blames humans for escalating ice loss in Antarctica. The media, however, seems to have no idea as to how truly manmade the supposed ice loss may be.
“Escalating Ice Loss Found in Antarctica; Sheets Melting in an Area Once Thought to Be Unaffected by Global Warming” was the Washington Post’s front-page, above-the-fold headline last Monday (Jan. 14). The headline for the continuation of the article was “Antarctic Ice Loss Could Speed Rise in Ocean Levels.” < > As warming surface temperatures could not be blamed for the ice loss, Rignot hypothesized that the cause may be the flow of warmer waters from the Antarctic Circumpolar Current that circles much of the continent. “Something must be changing the ocean to trigger such changes,” Rignot told the Post. “We believe it is related to [manmade global warming]”, he added. Rignot may indeed “believe” that humans are the cause – he is, after all, part of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization founded on the belief that humans are causing catastrophic global warming. But the facts belie such beliefs. First, standard climate alarmism claims that manmade emissions of greenhouse gases are warming surface temperatures. But not only is such warming not being observed in Antarctica, it’s actually getting cooler in western Antarctica, according to surface temperature analysis from each of eight NASA stations located there. Rignot, of course, admits that standard climate alarmism can’t possibly explain the western Antarctic melting; that’s why he shifted to blaming man for the warmer Antarctic Circumpolar Current. < > In an effort to support Rignot’s hypothesis, Columbia University’s Douglas Martinson told The Washington Post that “the [Antarctic Circumpolar Current”, which flows about 200 yards below the frigid surface water, began to warm significantly in the 1980s, and that warming in turn caused wind patterns to change in ways that ultimately brought more warm water to shore.” But Martinson also admitted to the Post that there is not enough data to say for certain that the process was set in motion by global warming. Truth be told, there is good reason to question Martinson's assertion about the temperature trend, let alone its hypothetical cause. According to World Climate Report, a 2007 study by University of Washington researchers reported that, although there is much interest among scientists in ocean temperature, “below-surface ocean temperature data are sparse, and the existing data sets involve substantial ‘interpolation, extrapolation, and averaging’ that may compromise the integrity of results from such data sets.” Adding to the mix is the most recent IPCC report, which says that the upper ocean adjacent to west Antarctica warmed by 1 degree Celsius from 1951 to 1994. But global surface temperatures actually declined from 1940 to 1976, even as manmade emissions of carbon dioxide dramatically increased. The bottom line is there is no established linkage between manmade emissions of greenhouse gases and any melting in the western Antarctic. But then, is there even any net ice loss in the western Antarctic to begin with? While Rignot did use satellite observations of Antarctica’s coastline to estimate melting, he compared this real-life data to computer model estimates of Antarctic interior snow accumulation. So the western Antarctic appears to be losing mass only when compared to computer models that, when it comes to global climate, are of questionable relevance to the real world. At JunkScience.com, we label these sorts of computer modeling exercises as “PlayStation® climatology.” Even if you put faith in climate models, Rignot’s don’t seem to agree with those of the IPCC, which stated in its most recent assessment, “Current global model studies project that the Antarctic Ice Sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall.”
Finally, according to NOAA data presented on the web site of Bill Chapman of the Polar Research Group at the University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign), the global level of sea ice has reached about the same level as it was at in 2003. The current change in global sea ice coverage is a positive 1 million square kilometers — that is, a gain of 1.8 million square kilometers in the Southern Hemisphere netted against a loss of 800,000 square kilometers in the Northern Hemisphere. It’s quite possible that the reported Antarctic melting is manmade — but the “man” may be Eric Rignot, as opposed to the term’s broader connotation.
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,323645,00.html
Meteorologist D'Aleo Debunks New Antarctic Melt Claims (IceCap.US)
Excerpt: Once again today we were told in the media that the Antarctic ice is melting at an increasing and alarming rate. The story appeared in many papers including the Washington Post and the UK Globe Mail today based on a research project, led by Eric Rignot, principal scientist for the Radar Science and Engineering Section at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, and appearing in the current issue of Nature Geoscience. In an e-mail, Dr. Rignot attributed the shrinkage in the ice sheet to an upwelling of warm waters along the Antarctic coast, which is causing some glaciers to flow more rapidly into the ocean. He suspects the trend is due to global warming. This seemed odd coming shortly after reports that the Southern Hemisphere (Antarctica) set a record for the MAXIMUM extent of ice since satellite monitoring began in 1979 this year. We thought we would take a look at the latest NSIDC graphs for southern hemispheric ice extent. I will remind you it is mid-summer in the Southern Hemisphere. Ice extent remains well (one million square kilometers) above the 28 year average and an impressive 3 million square kilometers above last year at this time!. There is clearly a lot of year to year variability in the record but the demise of the Antartic icecap seems to be anything but imminent. Most of the warming and melt in recent years has been in the vicinity of the Antarctic Peninsula, a small portion of the Antarctic which reaches above the Antarctic Circle and is a choke-point for the circumpolar ocean currents, and is more susceptible to variations. There’s also an active subsea volcano in the area, perhaps leading to the warm water upwelling in the study.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/latest_antarctic_sea_ice_extent2/
Peer-Reviewed Study Debunks Drought Linked Global Warming Claims
Excerpt: In a recent issue of the International Journal of Climatology brings us a story about soil moisture extending back 1,426 years! The article is by a team of Chinese scientists from the University of San Diego and various institutions in China. The research was funded by NASA, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the K.C. Wang Education Foundation of Hong Kong, and University of San Diego. They begin the article noting “Anthropogenic climate changes since the Industrial Revolution have attracted much attention in recent years. One often debated question is whether the magnitude of the climate change has exceeded the range of natural variability of the climate system” (sounds like they read World Climate Report). They specifically turn their attention to soil moisture conditions in northwestern China (see very nice map below) and then reveal the plan to reconstruct soil moisture levels for over 1,400 years. < > They pour more salt on the greenhouse wound stating “The recent trend to a wetter condition conformed to the ice accumulation record during 1600–1980 based on the ice core taken from the Dunde Glacier (38°06’N, 96°24’E, 5325 m) northwest of the study region. The wetter trend was also corroborated by a recent study in northern Pakistan, in which a reconstructed precipitation record based on tree-ring data indicated that the 20th Century was the wettest period during the past millennium.” Did you notice that little comment about ice accumulation at a nearby glacier – we are sure that is an interesting story as well? Yin et al. definitely are not making any friends with the greenhouse advocates and their findings definitely will not be featured in any self-respecting climate-change-hyping newspapers anytime soon.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/01/11/raining-on-the-drought-parade/
Ice returns as Greenland faces 'brutal cold' (Where is the media coverage?)
Excerpt: Residents insist Greenland's freezing temperatures don't mean global warming has been called off While the rest of Europe is debating the prospects of global warming during an unseasonably mild winter, a brutal cold snap is raging across the semi-autonomous nation of Greenland. On Disko Bay in western Greenland, where a number of prominent world leaders have visited in recent years to get a first-hand impression of climate change, temperatures have dropped so drastically that the water has frozen over for the first time in a decade.'The ice is up to 50cm thick,' said Henrik Matthiesen, an employee at Denmark's Meteorological Institute who has also sailed the Greenlandic coastline for the Royal Arctic Line. 'We've had loads of northerly winds since Christmas which has made the area miserably cold.' Matthiesen suggested the cold weather marked a return to the frigid temperatures common a decade ago. Temperatures plunged to -25°C earlier this month, clogging the bay with ice and making shipping impossible for small crafts, according to Anthon Frederiksen, the mayor of the town of Ilulissat, where Disko Bay is located.
http://www.cphpost.dk/get/105114.html
Saudi Arabia covered with snow in coldest winter for 20 years
Excerpt: Northern parts of Saudi Arabia are covered with snow with schools, mosques and administrative bodies paralyzed, local media reported Friday. The oil-rich kingdom is being hit with subzero temperatures and snow storms with freezing winds of up to 50 km/h (30mp/h). Some regions have been experiencing problems with water supplies as pipes have frozen, and livestock has died from the cold.
The Saudi Gazette reported late in December that the winter was expected to last 89 days, with temperatures reaching below zero. National media said the winter is the coldest in the country for 20 years.
Morning and afternoon prayers are being combined in many mosques because of the morning cold and some schools will reopen later than scheduled.
The bad weather is fun for children and teenagers, however, who have been making snowballs and building snowmen with enthusiasm.
http://en.rian.ru/world/20080111/96210251.html
Snow in the Middle of the South America Summer
Excerpt: Metsul Weather Center - The weather went crazy. This is the most read sentence in the press of Buenos Aires at this moment. The central and northern areas of Argentina are experiencing a brutal heat wave that brought the electrical grid of country to near a collapse point. The temperature soared to 39C (102F) in Buenos Aires with a heat index of 42C (108F), but in some provinces of Argentina the heat index reached 54C (129F) yesterday. This morning it snowed in several locations of southern Argentina as the famous resort of Bariloche in the Andes Mountains. It even snowed in downtown Bariloche (photo), a rare event for January. Local press described the snow blanketed the Cordillera of Chubut, an unusual event for January. “I do not know if I use my plastic swimming pool or the skis”, told a local resident that saw snow this morning and just few hours earlier suffered with much above average temperature reaching 30C (86F) in the Patagonia region. Snow was also reported in San Martins de Los Andes. Tourists in the regional, used to see snow in the colder months of the years, could not believe the white thing was falling in the middle of January. Just like this week in the United States (winter storm in the West and unusually warm in the East), the northern areas of Argentina were under very warm weather warnings at the some moment it was snowing in the southern provinces.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/breaking_news_snow_in_the_middle_of_the_south_america_summer/
Environmental extremism must be put in its place in the climate debate
Excerpt: All responsible citizens are ‘environmentalists’, but that is no reason to yield to mass delusions. Many people are starting to realize that much of what they’ve been told about climate change by governments, the United Nations and crusading celebrities is simply wrong. Not surprisingly, the assertion that “the science is settled” in a field the public is coming to understand is both immature and quickly evolving, is triggering growing public skepticism. Alarmists respond by upping the ante, making even more extreme and nonsensical forecasts, which in turn further fuels healthy public disbelief. This pattern of exaggerated, and finally ludicrous assertions influencing debate in society is an old story. Extremists and extremism have always defined the limits for the majority. Climate extremism will increase in the near future as purveyors of politically correct but flawed views of climate change attempt to defend the indefensible.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1272
Russia warns of emergency as Siberian temperatures dip to -67F below zero!
Excerpt: Moscow, Russia (AHN) - Russians are bracing for temperatures of as low as minus 55 degrees Celsius (minus 67 degrees Fahrenheit) in Siberia as Russia's emergencies ministry warns on Wednesday of its impending dangers in the coming weeks. Government agencies were placed on high alert, reports AFP. The ministry ordered local administration officials to prepare for the extreme chill expected to last until Jan. 21. The ministry warned that the unusually cold weather could kill, cause frost-bite, conk heaters and cut electricity to homes, disrupt transport, increase the rate of car accidents and even destroy buildings across Siberia. The freezing temperatures have already caused overloading of electricity grids and power interruptions in the regions of Irkutsk and Tomsk because of overused heaters in homes. Two people have already died and more than 30 others hospitalized with forst-bite in Irkutsk, reports AFP citing state media. Bloomberg reports that worst hit will be the Siberian region of Evenkiya, while neighbor Georgia, whose climate is subtropical, already plunged to as low as minus 35 degrees Celsius. Lake Paliastomi in the western Georgia froze for the first time in 50 years, reports Rustavi-2 television.
Average temperatures in large Siberian cities in January usually range between minus 15 degrees Celsius and minus 39 degrees Celsius, according to data from weatherbase.com. Schools have been closed down in at least four regions because of the cold.
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009739004
New Hampshire may break 1874 winter snowfall record
Excerpt: We could be on our way to a record snowfall for the season with yesterday's winter whiteout. The nor'easter blanketed much of Southern New Hampshire with about 9 inches of snow and made for rough travel on area roads with numerous vehicles driving off Interstate 93. No major injuries were reported. By late in the day, the storm tapered off to flurries. Before yesterday, the total snowfall for Concord - the state's only location with long-term weather records - was 54 inches or 28 inches above normal, according to the National Weather Service in Gray, Maine. Factor in the additional amount that fell yesterday, and the state's 66-inch snowfall for 2007-2008 is halfway to surpassing the all-time record of 122 inches that fell in 1873-1874, said meteorologist Jim Mansfield. Those were snowy years with four consecutive seasons with 100 inches or more between 1872 and 1876. The state has received 100 inches or more on nine occasions since 1872. The state records go back to the post-Civil War years of 1868-1869.
http://www.eagletribune.com/punewsnh/local_story_015093928?keyword=topstory+page=0
Air America Attacks: Is Morano Just an Honest Skeptic?
Excerpt: as Thom has suggested on more than one occasion? Or a political operative who should be challenged as such? You decide:
http://www.thomhartmann.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=104&func=view&catid=11&id=1790
Score one for climate science! Inhofe's Senate Website Wins Top Award – In Large Part For A Balanced Presentation of Global Warming Skepticism
Award to Senator Inhofe for presenting environmental information was made possible by National Science Foundation & John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University! GOLD MOUSE AWARD: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=793d0d53-802a-23ad-4a23-778e7211843a Excerpt: The 2007 Gold Mouse Report and Awards are part of the “Connecting to Congress” research project, funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation. For this project CMF partnered with researchers from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, University of California-Riverside and Ohio State University to study how Members of Congress can use the Internet to improve communications with their constituents and to promote greater participation in the legislative process. The Inhofe EPW website has been on the vanguard of cutting edge Internet and media savvy dissemination. In December of 2006, Senator Inhofe launched the newly redesigned Senate EPW Website featuring a revised user friendly interface with quick access to audio and video clips of speeches and hearings. In addition, the new website featured the Inhofe EPW Press Blog, (LINK) a blog by Senator Inhofe’s EPW committee press office on the hot button committee issues of the day. The Inhofe EPW press team has authored numerous breaking news reports (See: March 20 report titled “Al Gore Continues to Demand Special Treatment” - LINK) and exclusive investigative reports from Washington D.C. (See: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics – LINK) In addition, the website released blockbuster reports, government white papers (See: U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 - LINK) and filed breaking news and in depth dispatches from around the globe from such destinations as Kenya, Greenland and Indonesia. Because of a year of stellar achievements, the CMF declared the Inhofe EPW website for being “among the best-of-the-best on Capitol Hill.” “Senator Inhofe’s Committee website shows that he understands the value of creating a virtual office to reach specific audiences who have come to expect having their needs met online,” said Beverly Bell, CMF’s Executive Director. “The Congressional Management Foundation congratulates Senator Inhofe for having a website that is among the best-of-the-best on Capitol Hill, and we are pleased to present Senator Inhofe with the 2007 Gold Mouse Award.”
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=793d0d53-802a-23ad-4a23-778e7211843a
Senate Report of 400 Rolls On - From Gloucester Daily Times in Gloucester, MA
Excerpt: We are already that intimidated by government that no one dares cry foul. Yet recently, 400 eminent scientists from around the world did just that. They declared in unison their objection to the theory that man-made emissions are responsible for global warming, asserting that solar activity, beyond our control, is the source of global warming and that man-made emissions do not factor in any significant way into the matter. It is said that numerous other scientists share that opinion, but dare not admit to their opinions for fear of reprisals. Welcome to the Dark Ages. The world is flat - praise be to political correctness!
http://www.gloucestertimes.com/puopinion/local_story_014093947?keyword=secondarystory+page=0
Danish tax minister admits CO2 levy is solely in place to fill state treasury
Excerpt: Companies and private consumers will continue paying an annual DKK 2.6 billion in greenhouse gas taxes despite already paying a similar levy to the EU. Amid harsh criticism from businesses, private consumers and government ally the Danish People's Party, Kristian Jensen, the tax minister, openly admitted that the greenhouse gas levy was a source of income for the state and no longer an environmental measure. The CO2 levy was originally established in 1991 and despite a new greenhouse gas emission tax being imposed by the EU, the previous duty remained in place. 'I do understand that it may seem incomprehensible to keep a levy that no longer serves an environmental purpose, but we are unable to exempt companies from paying it due to EU legislation,' said Jensen.
http://www.cphpost.dk/get/105111.html
Survey shows eco-warriors are worst polluters
Excerpt: A survey of travel habits has revealed that the most environmentally conscious people are also the biggest polluters. "Green" consumers have some of the biggest carbon footprints because they are still hooked on flying abroad or driving their cars while their adherence to the green cause is mostly limited to small gestures. Identified as "eco-adopters", they are most likely to be members of an environmental organisation, buy green products such as detergents, recycle and have a keen interest in green issues. But the survey of 25,000 people, by the market research company Target Group Index, found that eco-adopters are seven per cent more likely than the general population to take flights, and four per cent more likely to own a car. The survey found similar trends in France and the United States. Geoff Wicken, the author of the report, pointed to David Cameron, the Conservative leader, as a classic eco-adopter because despite styling himself as a green warrior he also takes flights in private helicopters and planes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/01/13/eagreens113.xml
Meteorologist Debunks Another Cherry Picking Study and AP Story By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM
Excerpt: Recently we reported on a study funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts and conducted by the Vermont Public Research and Education Fund purports to show increased extreme precipitation events-rain and snow-in the United States over the last 59 years, perhaps linked to global warming. The first half of the period studied was the last cold phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, an ocean current pattern that strongly affects storm tracks and thus precipitation over North America. Half way through the VPIRG study period the PDO flipped to its warm phase. The VPIRG carefully picked a period where it could hardly have avoided getting the higher precipitation frequency that it wanted for maximum shock effect. A new study by the University of New Hampshire reported by the AP that looks at temperatures and snowfall in the northeast. It conveniently starts in 1965 near the bottom of the last cool period and ends in 2005 near the peak of the latest warm period. Their study of weather station data from across the Northeast from 1965 through 2005 found temperatures from December through March increased by 2.5 degrees over the four decades. When you look at the National Climate Data Center data for the northeast region for the entire record since 1895, you see cycles of warming and cooling but little in the way of any net change from warmest 5 year mean peak (1950 for this region) to next warmest peak (2000) or coldest year (1903) to next coldest year (1980). See larger image here. Read in this analysis more on the temperature issue and why although their analysis of snowfall changes are likely correct, they have can be easily explained by changes in storm tracks due to changes in the Pacific.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/another_cherry_picking_unh_study_and_ap_story/
Arctic Inuit expresses man-made climate skepticism
Excerpt: Mr. Uyarak said he is a skeptic about the idea of permanent climate change – his grandparents tell him there have always been cycles on the land, that sometimes the caribou herds are huge and close, and sometimes they are small and many hundreds of kilometres away.But he, too, said he sees changes in the weather changing his culture. Last year, there were many serious accidents in Nunavut when people on snowmobiles fell through ice that should not have been thin, he said; when he went hunting seal pups with his family last spring, the bay was full of loose ice and there were few seals.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080112.timbuktu12/BNStory/International/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20080112.timbuktu12
Congressman: Need to Understand Global Warming before Trying to Fix It
Excerpt: Press release from U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He issued the following statement today as part of an Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee hearing entitled, "Administration Perspectives on United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali:" I'm still not convinced that the science and the economics of the issue are settled. I know a lot of people want to move on and look at solutions, but I don't think we can have a very good chance to develop an optimal solution if we don't really understand the problem. There are a large number of skeptics still out there about what causes global warming and what mankind can do about it. < > "You've indicated that you want to introduce a cap-and-trade bill sometime this spring, Mr. Chairman. I hope we can dissuade you from that position. The great experiment in Europe with cap-and-trade so far is an absolute failure. There's no other way to put it. The prices their economies are paying is going up and emissions are going up, too. Now, their apologists say that that's only because they don't have it just right. But I predict that no matter how much they tinker with it, when you're trying to cap-and-trade something as ubiquitous as CO2, most of which is not manmade, it's folly, it's an impossible situation.
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2008_01_01_archive.html
Pope cautions that global warming fears may be 'scaremongering'
Excerpt: What matters is what the Pope himself says. He warned that "any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not dubious ideology ... Fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disaster are nothing more than scaremongering. While some concerns may be valid, it is vital that the international community bases its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement ... Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow. It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions." It cannot have escaped the Pope's attention that carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly for nearly nine years. Similar misgivings about how well the greenhouse theory fits the availab! le facts informed the views of his leading local representative, Cardinal George Pell. In February this year Pell wrote a column calling for caution over exaggerated claims of severe global warming. He said he is "deeply sceptical about man-made catastrophic global warming, but still open to further evidence. What we are seeing from the doomsayers is an induced dose of mild hysteria, semi-religious if you like, but dangerously close to superstition. I would be surprised if industrial pollution and carbon emissions had no effect at all, but enough is enough."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22981321-7583,00.html
Interview with Catholic Cardinal Pell on Climate Fears
Excerpt: I am certainly skeptical about extravagant claims of impending man-made climatic catastrophes. Scientific debate is not decided by any changing consensus, even if it is endorsed by political parties and public opinion. Climate change both up and down has been occurring, probably since earth first had a climate. Science is a process of experimentation, debate, and respect for evidence. Often it is dealing with uncertainties rather than certainties, and so its forecasts and predictions can be spectacularly wrong. We must not ignore evidence that doesn’t suit our cause. Long-term weather forecasting is a notoriously imprecise exercise. In the 1970s some scientists were predicting a new ice age because of global cooling. Today other scientists are predicting an apocalypse because of global warming. It is no disrespect to science or scientists to take these latest claims with a grain of salt. Commitment to the scientific method actually requires it. Uncertainties on climate change abound. Temperatures in Greenland were higher in the 1940s than they are today, and the Kangerlussuaq glacier there is not shrinking but growing in size. While the ice may be melting in the Arctic, apparently it is increasing in extent in the Antarctic. Overall world temperatures have not increased since 1998 according to the statistics—whatever the case might be in particular locations.
http://www.energiesunit.info/global-warming-and-cold-spell-soon-to-replace-global-warming-729/
Catholic Bishop Condemns Climate Change Extremism, Radical Environmentalism
Bishop Crepaldi, the Vatican secretary of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.
Excerpt: Crepaldi's remarks followed the same lines, cautioning men and women to distinguish between valid scientific theories and ideologically driven agendas that are veiled by a deceptive layer of science, reported Catholic World News. "It is always necessary to distinguish between scientific work and ideological use of scientific work," said Crepaldi. Crepaldi further clarified his remarks, warning against ideologies that "subordinate the human person to a presumed centrality of nature."
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2008/jan/08010301.html
Scientist raps media and scientists for 'poor reporting' on health impacts of global warming
Below was written by Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review. Briggs is one of the Senate 400 plus “Consensus Busters.” (See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport )
Excerpt: But the authors were not content with their “findings”, they progressed to naked speculation: said one of them, warming “might also bring a significant increase in previously uncommon diseases such as Dengue and Ross River fever to Australia’s rural communities” and that we “could see both a worsening of existing diseases as well as the spread of diseases usually associated with warmer region.” Of course, we could; it is mere tautology to say we could, but to offer such a prediction without evidence and without an expression of uncertainty can rightly be called fear mongering. I hope you have learned a little about how to properly criticize studies of this type. But whatever other criticism you offer, you cannot say this study, and others like it, are “not science.” It is science, but it is bad science, poorly executed science, and irresponsible science.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/01/15/what-can-we-learn-about-global-warming-from-poor-reporting/
Blame the greens when the lights go off
Excerpt: I've heard officials with homeless charities deride Friends of the Earth for its opposition to Gordon Brown's plans for a house building programme - 'bearded nimbies' is their only printable comment. The fashion for counting 'food miles' and feeling righteous if you buy locally produced food doesn't concern itself with the question of how farmers in poor countries will be affected if consumers in rich export markets make a virtue of boycotting their products. < > Maybe people can only worry about the environment when they are not worried about how to make their pay last until the end of the week. It's certainly easier to live off organic food if you have a comfortable income and to recycle if you can afford a house with a garden for a compost heap. But even if the rich have greater scope to be greener than the poor, the possibility that the momentum behind the environmental movement will dissipate with a crash is exacerbated by the failure of its leaders to think hard enough about how the policies they recommend hit those in straitened circumstances.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,,2240172,00.html
The Well-Funded "Well-Funded Denial Machine" Denial Machine
Excerpt: One of the arguments which frequently emerge from the warmers in climate change debates is that the scientific expertise of sceptics has been bought – literally – by oil companies. We see this tired argument again wheeled out in the aftermath of the Inhofe 400 list. For example, James Wang of non-profit organization Environmental Defense tells us,
The aim of the report is to refute that only a handful of scientists - mostly in the pocket of oil companies - still dispute that global warming is happening, and that it's caused by human activities.< > Let us recap. Of all the oil companies, according to Greenpeace, the Royal Society, and campaigning organisations, journalists, and scientists, ExxonMobil is the worst. And of all the wrong things it does, the worst has been to give $2 million to the CEI over the course of a decade. This funding has been sufficient to significantly stall international action on climate change on the global political agenda. Allegedly. Yet as we can see, since 1994, Greenpeace have been the lucky recipients of well over $2 billion in roughly the same time. A difference of three orders of magnitude. < > The irony of "the well-funded well-funded-denial-machine denial machine" is not simply that it is well funded, and denies critics of its political agenda, whilst complaining about funding and political distortion of science. But that the angry accusations thrown at sceptics - both scientists and 'ideological' sceptics - are the product of a deeply illiberal form of politics, which seeks to deny opposition its right to expression, avoids debate, and hides behind the distorted conception of science that comittees can determine scientific truth which politicians and individuals should obey, and damn anybody who disagrees.
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/01/well-funded-well-funded-denial-machine.html
Global Warming Alarmists & Mathematical Models
Excerpt: Global warmists place unquestioning faith mathematical models of anthropogenic global warming, declaring their predictions to be settled science, as if the models completely and flawlessly took account of all significant variables in one of the most complex systems ever studied, the earth's atmosphere. Yet experience teaches us that modeling atmospheric phenomena is an uncertain business, even in atmospheres much less complex than the planetary system. Far simpler artificial atmospheres or "climates" are routinely created and modeled in the semiconductor industry. Working in sealed vessels within which chemical vapor deposition (CVD) forms nanometer-scale thin solid films on silicon wafer surfaces, in order to produce integrated circuits and many other semiconductor products. Last year I wrote about the many difficulties these simple atmospheric models encounter:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/liberals_and_mathematical_mode_1.html
Madame Environmentalist: Heidi Fleiss to open wind-powered brothel for women - Heidi Fleiss Elle February 2008
Excerpt: Fleiss "...who grew up affluent in L.A. and spent three years in prison for tax evasion and is going to make a comeback—any day now, she says—starting the world’s first legal, wind-powered brothel for women with exclusively male hookers (and a spa), who only wants to talk about birds."
http://www.elle.com/featurefullstory/12660/heidi-fleiss-elle-february-2008.html
Yeah, it's a fact that there's no debate, isn't it?
Well, that's quite a posting. I've scanned through it and I have to say I didn't find any peer-reviewed science anywhere. Did I miss it?
| Bikerman wrote: | | Did I miss it? |
You most certainly did.
Well. I went through it again and still didn't find any. Perhaps you could take pity on me and give a quick list of the peer-reviewed science to save me having to plough through yet again.
The only thing that I could find which was peer reviewed was a study entitled "Parallels in reactionary argumentation in the US congressional debates on the abolition of slavery and the Kyoto Protocol".
That is interesting, to be sure, but hardly speaks to the science...
| Bikerman wrote: | | Perhaps you could take pity on me |
I have very little time for pity on those who are so closed minded and ignorant. Sorry. There is plenty here to completely refute or at least strongly question your claim that the Hardly Report is accurate. If you don't want to see it, there's nothing I can do to help you.
Suffice it to say, there IS a debate. There is NOT a "scientific consensus" and there hasn't been since the Earth was declared flat and the center of the universe, and we all know how that ended.
| BigMo420 wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | Perhaps you could take pity on me |
I have very little time for pity on those who are so closed minded and ignorant. Sorry. There is plenty here to completely refute or at least strongly question your claim that the Hardly Report is accurate. If you don't want to see it, there's nothing I can do to help you.
Suffice it to say, there IS a debate. There is NOT a "scientific consensus" and there hasn't been since the Earth was declared flat and the center of the universe, and we all know how that ended. |
LOL..so you start by asking for peer-reviewed science. I provide it and you ignore it. You then provide a huge list of blog entries and newspaper articles with no peer-reviewed science at all, and it's ME that is ignorant?
ROFLMAO
| Bikerman wrote: | peer-reviewed science. I provide it and you ignore it. You then provide a huge list of blog entries and newspaper articles with no peer-reviewed science at all, and it's ME that is ignorant?
ROFLMAO |
I'd hardly call that peer reviewed. And I did not ignore it. I provided you with plenty of stories pointing to plenty of data to refute your claim of AWG and all you can do is cry about "peer reviewed science".
Yes, it's YOU that's ignorant. Places like the Senate Committee and others that provide you with debate and you ignore it.
Those are interesting articles, thanks.
| TBSC wrote: | | Those are interesting articles, thanks. |
You're welcome. There are many stories there, pointing to many instances where the AGW hype is exposed. If you care to see it. 
A list of peer-reviewed science on climate - for those who find blogs and newspapers a less than reliable source of information.
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=4761&gclid=CKOhyOiW0ZICFQ1rMAodZF5iBQ
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/ipcc-highlights1.html
Why peer-review? Any idiot with a viewpoint can publish on the internet, and a lot of them do. Peer-review is the method used in science to sort out science from pseudo-science and nonsense.
If you want to believe journalists, politicians and bloggers on the matter then go ahead and read their views. If you want to understand the science then the best source is the scientists.
Right, because 400 scientists are not allowed to let their views be posted on news sites and blogs. If they do, they are automatically disallowed because bikerman said so.
And if "peers" are being paid as the same shill, then I guess peer review will work great for your cause.
On a side note, wanna buy some carbon credits?
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16806
| Quote: | | "In his resignation letter, Landsea documented how the IPCC had sanctioned a "misrepresentation" of hurricane research and issued "unfounded pronouncements" to the media that "subverted and compromised" the scientific assessment of the IPCC's hurricane researchers. According to Landsea, statements made by the IPCC to the media demonstrated "preconceived agendas" that are "scientifically unsound." |
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1489
| Quote: | | In scientific circles, CO2 is referred to as a ‘trace gas’ that, for hundreds of thousands of years, has remained at or below five ten-thousandths of the atmosphere by volume. Even among the so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG), CO2 accounts for less that 4%, with water vapour being by far the most significant GHG. CO2 is clearly a miniscule component of the massive mechanisms that create climate and cause climate change. |
And for your reading pleasure, you can find weekly peer reviewed papers on the medieval warm period.
http://www.co2science.org/
| BigMo420 wrote: | | Right, because 400 scientists are not allowed to let their views be posted on news sites and blogs. If they do, they are automatically disallowed because bikerman said so. |
They are free to publish their views anywhere they like. If, however, they wish to be taken seriously then they should publish them in the peer reviewed journals.
| Quote: | | And if "peers" are being paid as the same shill, then I guess peer review will work great for your cause. |
As I have already said, you don't understand how peer-review works, and there is little point discussing the matter until you do. It was you that asked for peer-reviewed science - I simply provided it.
More peer review sites that you can ignore...
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/
This one is a blog, so bikerman probably won't allow it. It's contributors, though, are people like
Patrick J. Michaels, a research professor of Environmental Sciences
Robert C. Balling, Jr., the former director of the Office of Climatology and is a professor of geography at Arizona State University.
Robert E. Davis, who is an Associate Professor of Climatology at the University of Virginia's Department of Environmental Sciences
But hey, they publish their stuff on a blog, so they can't be taken seriously, can they?
This puts much of this debate in to a nice, tidy package.
http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/robinson600.pdf
| Quote: | Citing a politicized agenda and misrepresentations of climate science, prominent climate scientist Chris Landsea on January 17 resigned his post as a participant in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Landsea's announcement is the second recent major embarrassment for global warming alarmists, whose "hockey stick" representation of world temperatures during the past millennium was recently exposed as being based on faulty data and misleading statistical methods. (See "Climate Alarmists Playing Shell Game with Data," page 9.) |
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16806
This is interesting Mo, and points to something important: the value of government sponsoring science activities.
| BigMo420 wrote: | | More peer review sites that you can ignore... |
Peer review? It simply isn't.
You can supply as many blog sites and oil industry funded sites as you like (yes, co2science.org is funded by exxon) but it won't change the facts.
This would be the site funded by Western Fuels?
By the way, you do know that the site takes the position that "...CO2 is a major anthropogenic greenhouse gas emitted through fossil fuel burning and also that it causes the Earth to warm" don't you?
| Quote: | | Patrick J. Michaels, a research professor of Environmental Sciences |
This would be the same Patrick Michaels who has received about $120,000 in the past 4 years from the oil industry?
| Quote: | | Robert C. Balling, Jr., the former director of the Office of Climatology and is a professor of geography at Arizona State University. |
This would be the same person who wrote (in 2005)
| Robert C Balling Jr wrote: | | There is substantial evidence that a non-solar control has become dominant in recent decades. The buildup of greenhouse gases and/or some other global-scale feedback, such as widespread changes in atmospheric water vapor, emerge as potential explanations for the recent residual warming found in all latitudinal bands. |
and in 2007 | Robert C Balling wrote: | | what's not new in today's IPCC report [Feb. 2, 2007] is that humans are warming the planet. |
| Quote: | | But hey, they publish their stuff on a blog, so they can't be taken seriously, can they? |
You can take them as seriously as you like. Personally I don't take them too seriously. You complain that peer-reviewed science might be corrupted by finance and politics (a claim without foundation) and then supply references to a site which is certainly 'taking the shill'.
PS - the one issue I would agree on is that of hurricanes. I think the statement from an IPCC official (Trenberth) that there was a clear link between climate change and increased hurricane damage/activity was misguided, and not based on proper science. Personally I believe that hurricanes will become more of an issue as warming continues, but that is a personal opinion, not science, and, as yet, I have seen no good scientific support for that opinion.
I understand that the IPCC have stated that the press-release was a personal statement by Trenberth rather than an IPCC position - but that could rightly be condemned as a cop-out. The simple fact is that the statement was wrong and should not have been made.
I think it's amazing how poorly science is understood by so many people. It's ridiculous and I'm not sure who or what is to blame. The fact that viewpoints like BigMo's exist is actually mind-boggling to me. Anybody who knows the slightest thing about science simply could not honestly hold such a perspective.
| Gagnar The Unruly wrote: | | I think it's amazing how poorly science is understood by so many people. It's ridiculous and I'm not sure who or what is to blame. The fact that viewpoints like BigMo's exist is actually mind-boggling to me. Anybody who knows the slightest thing about science simply could not honestly hold such a perspective. |
It's not that suprising. There are still people who believe the moon landings were a hoax and/or believe that evolution is a science conspiracy. The US, in particular, put a lot of effort and finance into trying to play down AGW - for obvious reasons. It is only recently that Bush has actually accepted that AGW is real and even then fairly half-heartedly. The internet is full of 'denier' web-sites, blogs and postings on the matter - some funded by vested interests and some simply based on ignorance.
The general tactic is to pick on disagreements between the climate scientists (which there certainly are) and magnify it so that it appears that there is no overall concensus. Exactly the same approach is taken by creationists when trying to pick-apart evolution.
There is no serious science which contradicts AGW as a theory that I have seen. There are papers which question the extent, speed and effects of AGW, but nobody reputable, working in the field, really claims that it doesn't exist (or if they do I haven't seen any papers published by them). The deniers try to denigrate peer-reviewed work in the field for the simple reason that it requires good science - not ignorant opinion.
The situation is not helped, of course, by the alarmists who make claims that cannot be substantiated by the science. This simply gives the deniers another stick to wield. That is one reason why I refuse to get drawn into speculating about the future - I confine my comments to the known science as far as I possibly can.
I think it is true to say that current climate models are speculative - modelling climate is hard, perhaps even too hard - the climate is probably chaotic (ie very tiny changes in an initial assumption can lead to widely different outcomes in the model predictions). It may be that we will never (in the forseable future) be able to model climate accurately - I simply don't know, but that is not an argument for abandoning the attempt and neither is it an argument for ignoring the results of our current best models.
The fact is that we know global temperature has risen (about 0.6 degrees) in the last century. Attempts to correlate this with solar activity have failed. It is a reasonable hypothesis, therefore, that the rise is linked to human activity (once other factors have been considered and ruled-out).
AGW is the only reasonable explanation for the current data-set. Those who deny that increased emissions by humans are responsible for increased global temperatures have no alternative explanation - solar variation has been effectively ruled-out. Until an alternative hypothesis emerges (if it ever does) then is it not only reasonable, but it is sensible to proceed on the basis that the current AGW hypothesis is valid.
| Bikerman wrote: | This would be the site funded by Western Fuels?
By the way, you do know that the site takes the position that "...CO2 is a major anthropogenic greenhouse gas emitted through fossil fuel burning and also that it causes the Earth to warm" don't you?
| Quote: | | Patrick J. Michaels, a research professor of Environmental Sciences |
This would be the same Patrick Michaels who has received about $120,000 in the past 4 years from the oil industry?
| Quote: | | Robert C. Balling, Jr., the former director of the Office of Climatology and is a professor of geography at Arizona State University. |
This would be the same person who wrote (in 2005)
| Robert C Balling Jr wrote: | | There is substantial evidence that a non-solar control has become dominant in recent decades. The buildup of greenhouse gases and/or some other global-scale feedback, such as widespread changes in atmospheric water vapor, emerge as potential explanations for the recent residual warming found in all latitudinal bands. |
and in 2007 | Robert C Balling wrote: | | what's not new in today's IPCC report [Feb. 2, 2007] is that humans are warming the planet. |
| Quote: | | But hey, they publish their stuff on a blog, so they can't be taken seriously, can they? |
You can take them as seriously as you like. Personally I don't take them too seriously. You complain that peer-reviewed science might be corrupted by finance and politics (a claim without foundation) and then supply references to a site which is certainly 'taking the shill'.
PS - the one issue I would agree on is that of hurricanes. I think the statement from an IPCC official (Trenberth) that there was a clear link between climate change and increased hurricane damage/activity was misguided, and not based on proper science. Personally I believe that hurricanes will become more of an issue as warming continues, but that is a personal opinion, not science, and, as yet, I have seen no good scientific support for that opinion.
I understand that the IPCC have stated that the press-release was a personal statement by Trenberth rather than an IPCC position - but that could rightly be condemned as a cop-out. The simple fact is that the statement was wrong and should not have been made. |
Bikerman, yeah I agree. That one stood out for me as being worth acknowledging. Thanks for your input. I guess the fact that people make money off of it doesn't mean it isn't a real issue.
| BigMo420 wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | So you don't want peer-reviewed papers, you want papers by people who agree with you? |
I want research from scientists who are not getting paid to preach the GW Gospel or the lack thereof. |
Oh dear. Someone needs to do their homework again I think. You cannot claim to be interested and informed when you obviously rely on the media to provide you with all the 'facts'. I have not read any of the Hadley Centre reports provided but I bet that they actually are based on science and are not published in order to sell newspapers or advertising, but are actually published to provide the public with a service (as the MET Office is world renowned for).
I hardly think that some (mainly US it seems) television weather forecasts giving 'exaggerated' snow fall levels constitutes scientific evidence that global warming is not happening and is not being accelerated by humans.
Nor does the Senate debate likely hold much scientific content as they are all politicians with their own private and public agendas.
Or a radio interview by some random US radio show host.
Or the uncertainties over clouds - you claim to know 'the truth' and I'm sure the IPCC would welcome your input if it could be shown to be scientifically valid.
And 400 scientists (wow that must be most of the scientists in the whole wide world musn't it???) challenging the claims of Al Gore is hardly surprising now is it since he is ONLY making a noise in order to make a profit.
The parallels with slavery is certainly an interesting way to try and get your point across but perhaps not the most scientific comparison especially considering its by a Professor of Philosphy and not climatology.
There are more newspaper and radio station debates - I'm sure they are all respected scientists but not the best forum if you want to claim credibility.
Then the newsflash - it was colder this year than last in Greenland! Amazing - that must mean that GW is a hoax... oh no wait, the temperature varies from year to year and its the overall trend that is warming. Drat!
Then we have large ice sheets for short periods of time in the Cretaceous - how large, how short, how hot? The Turonian period is apparently 4.2million years - was there not one single winter that was cold enough for ice to form?
Not sure what relevance the article about 'greenies' taking us back to the 17th century has to do with your argument - apart from he says that some 'greenies' are hell-bent on returning us to the 17th century.
Then a newspaper article with elusive sources (ie a web site) spouting some alternatives as fact when the real situation seems to be that nobody is really sure. The fact that newspaper articles (the ones claiming the cleaving was due to man) turn out to have dubious sources does not mean that man in not responsible for global warming, just that we don't know exactly what caused it.
I got bored by this stage sorry. But not a single journal article coudl I find. There were a couple of 'record breaking' cold spells, some more media interviews, politicians spouting stuff (didn't even bother to read it just accepted that it'd probably not have any scientific merit), a tax minister admitting that a new tax was desinged to generate income (really??? fancy that!!!), something about middle class eco warriors going on holiday more often (anyone shocked by that?), an Inuit quoting his grandparents, yet more politicians, the Pope (he is, after all, the only one on Earth who does actually know the future - right?), another couple of high ranking Church members, something about a wind-powered brothel (no, really) where you can only talk about birds.
And that was about it.
Although I'm sure some of the articles are well written and possibly even interesting there is no guarantee you'll find anything that could be considered scientific.
Enjoy.
David.
| Ghost Rider103 wrote: | I think it is a very big problem.
I don't know much about how much ice is knocked off every year, but I do know a little bit about the ice melting, and it's a problem.
A lot of our heat is reflected back into space by our snow/ice. So, as the snow/ice keeps melting away, our planet is actually heating up, and destroying our ozone layer from the inside out. You are correct, this melting snow has to go somewhere. This is the second bad part of global warming. (I'm not entirely sure on this one, and I don't think anyone is) They say once all the ice is melted, most of our planet will be under water, though I disagre with that. I agree our sea levels will rise, but not enough to put as much of earth under water as some scientist say it would. But I could be wrong. Now as the ice melts away, we go into the seocnd bad part of global warming, which is replacing that snow/ice back where it belongs, which is called the Ice Age.
So yes it is a very big problem if the ice continues to melt. |
Maybe, I am not a scientist but I can tell you what it feels like when the snow goes over your rubbers.
In the summer time if the ice in my drink melts them my drink gets colder in the glass. But what happens when the ice is all gone. If the solar caps are our earths refrigerator then it is acting as buffer to moderate our climate, if we loose too much then I suspect there will be an overall surge of climate change even greater than what we are experiencing now. Anyone know what actually causes the shift to a reverse trend called ice age? The only thing I can think of is a riseing core temperature that would errupt more ash into the atmosphere blocking out the suns rays?
|
