man affects the climate like I rule the universe... The earth was once a ball of ice, but due to the fact that the earth is a ball of molten rock with a crust floating on it, the ice melted. the earth grew warm until the next cataclysm that caused an ice age, which melted, and another ice age, which melted, etc... But, whatever can be used to rip our hard earned cash from us and give it to the multi- billionaires.
Is there any issue more dependent on widespread lapses in critical thinking than the idea of man-caused global warming?
Nothing wrecks an argument faster than a question revealing a gaping hole in that argument's fundamental premise. Notice the abundantly obvious derailment in this example:
"We need to do something about the proliferation of ghosts causing an unprecedented number of people to have nightmares lately. This problem leads to widespread sleeplessness, which in turn leads to a downturn in work productivity and overall economic hardship, and you are a cold-hearted capitalist pig if you deny the need for workers to be healthy."
Any critical thinker will yell, "What?! Prove ghostsexist before you start calling me names!"
The so-called global warming crisis has gotten away with an equally preposterous premise -- that human activity drives climate change -- for nearly two decades, because that premise at least sounded plausible. After all, humans do damage the environment to some extent in various ways, and the weather does seem a bit weird lately, so maybe it's possible that our greenhouse gas emissions have a detrimental effect. Plus, reporters tell us that scientists are saying this is so.
Overlooked by many is the very thing that's kept the issue alive all this time. No different from in a ponzi scheme, the public must never lose confidence in the idea that this issue is a problem in need of a solution. The moment anything approaching a majority of people starts asking tough questions about skeptic scientists expressing legitimate opposition, the entire issue goes into a fatal tailspin, taking down all those who unquestioningly defend the idea.
Think about all the assertions we've heard and what happens when anybody starts asking critical questions using information that's easier than ever to find on the internet.
Even at the height of winter in the northern hemisphere, we're told the Arctic ice cap is melting and that polar bears drown when swimming through too much open water. Yet polar bear populations are increasing, online Arctic weather station feeds closest to the ice cap routinely show freezing temps in all but the warmest summer months, and this particular winter, Arctic Sea Ice Extent has returned to levels very close to the 1979-2000 average.
The media has been implying that extreme weather is more frequent, yet blaring headlines from long ago are easily found on weather appearing to be just as extreme, if not worse.
We're told that the dry warm winter in the U.S. this time around indicates global warming, yet horrible cold temperatures in Europe this same winter aren't called a similar indicator.
Many express anguish over ocean acidification, yet these same people never mention the irrefutable fact that oceans are alkaline and that it would thus take some kind of herculean phenomenon just to push them into a pure neutral pH balance, long before they ever become even mildly acidic.
Prominent NASA personnel who criticized NASA's alarmist narratives on global warming in a recent WSJ letter are said to be politically driven, yet NASA climate scientist James Hansen is routinely seen being arrested at civil disobedience global warming rallies organized by far-left enviro-activists.
The chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that "everything that we look at and take into account in our assessments has to carry credibility of peer-reviewed publications, we don't settle for anything less." Yet people who meticulously sift through IPCC reports are finding out that in its 2007 report alone, over 5,500 such publications were non-peer-reviewed.
And on and on. Critical thinking is eventually deadly to the idea of man-caused global warming. It's a death by a thousand cuts.
But there is one more especially egregious lapse in critical thinking here -- not regarding the science, but instead vis-à-vis what the public is led to believe about skeptic scientists.
We're told that skeptic scientists lie about all of the "death by a thousand cuts" evidence. We're told that they work for big coal and oil -- much like so-called expert shills were paid by tobacco industries to "manufacture doubt" about the hazards of smoking.
Yet no reporter pushing that narrative bothers to show which peer-reviewed science journal-published paper written by a skeptic is an outright fabrication written in exchange for fossil fuel industry money. No reporter bothers to show how myriad examples of critical thinking reveal pre-existing -- not manufactured -- doubt about claims of evidence for global warming. And no reporter ever attempts to first disprove that the paltry funding skeptics did receive from the fossil fuel industry was given simply because those people agreed with what the skeptics were already saying.
The accusation that skeptic scientists are corrupt is devoid of critical thinking. Anybody will spot these problems after a thorough examination of all the facts:
Al Gore says that book author/reporter Ross Gelbspan discovered leaked evidence from 1991 coal industry memos proving that skeptics are corrupt, yet other book authors and reporters quoted words from those memos prior to Gelbspan, including Gore himself.
Uncounted numbers of people quote words from those memos to prove that skeptics are corrupt, yet not one ever shows the memos in their full context.
Gelbspan claimed in a late summer 1997 NPR radio interview, using the most commonly quoted fragment sentences from the memos, that "sinister" efforts were being made to confuse the public about global warming, yet when the full-context memos are read at Greenpeace archive scan web pages (where only an astute researcher would know to look for them; they are not found there via ordinary internet searches), it becomes abundantly obvious that the memos were for a very small pilot project PR campaign, and Gelbspan took the fragment sentences entirely out of context.
Gelbspan was long praised as a Pulitzer-winner, the designation even appearing on the front of his hardcover 2004 Boiling Point book, yet the Pulitzer organization has never recognized him as a prize-winner.
On and on and on, there is a sea of red flags to be found in the accusation itself and all the people surrounding it.
Tie the full exposure of the global warming issue's ever-increasing science problems with the revelation of how a literally unsupportable accusation bordering on libel/slander was concocted against its scientist critics, and the world should now see how all the hysteria was and is nothing more than an "information" Ponzi scheme based on constant infusions of misinformation that could have been revealed as such years ago. A death of a thousand cuts becomes a stake through the heart.
Yup...I KNEW IT. When the globe stopped warming, they changed the name from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change". When people didn't buy their stupid scare tactics about climate change, they changed the name to "Sustainability". They will NEVER give up on this crap.
Huxley Lawler, Executive Coordinator of Environment and Climate Change of the Gold Coast City Council in Australia (an ICLEI member), told CFACT Executive Director Craig Rucker bluntly that “we don’t use the term climate change anymore. It’s sustainable development.” Rucker and CFACT staffer Abdul Kamara confirmed this in conversations with other delegates, including Paul Chambers, a Sustainability Manager for the Auckland Council in New Zealand. Chambers said it is important to use inexact environment protection terminology when dealing with conservative governments, like the one he says currently heads his nation.
...
Another speaker at the ICLEI World Congress admitted today that creating carbon neutral cities, an important ICLEI goal, will likely kill jobs and displace businesses that are unable to adapt to restrictive policies that raise energy prices or reduce energy reliability. Addressing a question about the impact of carbon neutral policies on the economy during a session on “Accounting and Reporting of Low Carbon Cities,” Hans Karsten said, “There is no guarantee that companies doing business today will be doing business in 20 years.” The head of Technical and Environmental Administration for Copenhagen, Denmark, Karsten later revealed that it was his city’s intent to have zero carbon emissions by 2025, with half the residents riding to work by bicycle.
Sea levels in a 620-mile "hot spot’’ along the Atlantic coast are rising three to four times faster than the global average, according to a new study by theU.S. Geological Survey. The sharp rise in sea levels from North Carolina to Massachusetts could mean serious flooding and storm damage for major cities such as New York, Philadelphia and Boston, as well as threats to wetlands habitats, the study said.
Since 1990, sea levels have risen 2 millimeters to 3.7 millimeters a year from Cape Hatteras, N.C., on the Outer Banks, to Boston, said the study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change. The global average for the same two-decade period was 0.6 millimeters to 1 millimeters per year.
Experts at the Geological Survey, along with other scientists, say that climate change and other factors will likely produce an average global sea level rise of two to three feet by 2100, said Asbury Sallenger, a USGS oceanographer who led the study, in an interview with the Los Angeles Times. The study predicts that sea levels will rise an additional 8 inches to 11 inches in the Atlantic coast "hot spot,’’ he said.
The main cause of recent sea level increases along the coast is the slowing of Atlantic currents caused by the arrival of fresh water from the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, the study said.
"Cities in the hot spot, like Norfolk, New York and Boston, already experience damaging floods during relatively low-intensity storms,’’ Sallenger said. Accelerated sea level rise in the hot spot will raise the risk of flooding and the height of storm surges, he said.
The USGS report follows a study by the National Research Council predicting that sea levels along the California coast will rise as much as one foot in just 20 years, two feet by 2050 and five-and-a-half feet by 2100. The report, released Friday, says the increases are caused by climate change and by the sinking of land masses in much of California.
The study predicts that global sea levels will rise 9 inches by 2030, 18 inches by 2050, and four-and-a-half feet by 2100.
Sea level rise is a sensitive subject for some political conservatives, who say that global warming is a hoax and that sea levels are not in danger of rising precipitously. The USGS study is significant because it provides data showing that sea levels have risen over the past two decades along the Atlantic Coast, regardless of the cause.
This spring, Republicans in the North Carolina legislature introduced a bill that would require sea level rise forecasts to be based on past patterns and would all but outlaw projections based on climate change data.
Using climate change and other data, a science panel with the state Coastal Resources Commission said that sea levels along the North Carolina coast could rise an average of 39 inches by 2100. Coastal business and development interests complained to the Republican-controlled legislature, saying the projections could trigger regulations costing businesses and homeowners millions of dollars.
Sallenger called the North Carolina science panel’s 39-inch prediction "totally sensible.’’
There are tidal differences around the globe on a usual basis. Some are higher than others, but, the average is still about .6 millimeters. For those who don't know metric, this works out to less than 1/32 in. per year which is about what it has been for the last 10,000 years. the Geological Survey claims a rise of at least 2 feet over about 90 years. That is not 2 feet by their own figures. It is actually 1/32" X 90 years ~ = 3" over 90 years, assuming the rise remains constant, which it does not. So it could be anywhere from 2" to 3". This is entirely expected.
Arn
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 06-25-2012).]
Originally posted by KidO: Sea levels in a 620-mile "hot spot’’ along the Atlantic coast are rising three to four times faster than the global average, according to a new study by the U.S. Geological Survey.
So, when I wonder what the elevation of Denver is, it will depend upon which sea level I choose to base elevation from ? Sea level is sea level, .
For the last 10 years Nick Drapela has taught chemistry at Oregon State University. Now the instructor will be out of a job in the fall and says he doesn’t know why.
He suspects — but the university denies — it’s because he has spoken out against the idea that human activity is causing global warming or climate change.
He has decribed himself as “probably the most visibly outspoken critic of the global warming doctrine at OSU ... I think they finally just said, we can’t have this.”
Originally posted by Arns85GT: There are tidal differences around the globe on a usual basis. Some are higher than others, but, the average is still about .6 millimeters. For those who don't know metric, this works out to less than 1/32 in. per year which is about what it has been for the last 10,000 years. the Geological Survey claims a rise of at least 2 feet over about 90 years. That is not 2 feet by their own figures. It is actually 1/32" X 90 years ~ = 3" over 90 years, assuming the rise remains constant, which it does not. So it could be anywhere from 2" to 3". This is entirely expected.
Arn
Arn: I think that you might be comparing apples to oranges.
The first point made in the article (about the USGS report) is that sea levels along the U.S. Atlantic Coast (from North Carolina to Massachusetts) since 1990 have been observed to be rising three to four times faster than the global average. That's three or four times more than the 2 to 3 inches rise in 90 years figure that you just calculated. So we are really talking anywhere from 6 inches to 12 inches higher along this stretch of Atlantic Coast (in 90 years)--provided that the rate doesn't increase any further.
?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-25-2012).]
Arn: I think that you might be comparing apples to oranges.
The first point made in the article (about the USGS report) is that sea levels along the U.S. Atlantic Coast (from North Carolina to Massachusetts) since 1990 have been observed to be rising three to four times faster than the global average. That's three or four times more than the 2 to 3 inches rise in 90 years figure that you just calculated. So we are really talking anywhere from 6 inches to 12 inches higher along this stretch of Atlantic Coast (in 90 years)--provided that the rate doesn't increase any further.
?
I think he skipped that part... It doesn't fit his agenda and is therefore not worth the read.
[This message has been edited by KidO (edited 06-26-2012).]
Arn: I think that you might be comparing apples to oranges.
The first point made in the article (about the USGS report) is that sea levels along the U.S. Atlantic Coast (from North Carolina to Massachusetts) since 1990 have been observed to be rising three to four times faster than the global average. That's three or four times more than the 2 to 3 inches rise in 90 years figure that you just calculated. So we are really talking anywhere from 6 inches to 12 inches higher along this stretch of Atlantic Coast (in 90 years)--provided that the rate doesn't increase any further.
?
Does it say how the sea level will rise more in one area than globally?
They seem to be saying that their projections are based on two things:
1. Rising temperatures, which leveled off over the last 14 years. It also assumes that CO2 will drive warming significantly, which so far, it isn't.
2. Computer models. You can program a model do to whatever you want. I doubt they can separate their bias enough to program a model to give a reasonably non-biased result. And remember - computer models are NOT proof. Only real world data is, a point which gets lost upon "believers".
They seem to be saying that their projections are based on two things:
1. Rising temperatures, which leveled off over the last 14 years. It also assumes that CO2 will drive warming significantly, which so far, it isn't.
2. Computer models. You can program a model do to whatever you want. I doubt they can separate their bias enough to program a model to give a reasonably non-biased result. And remember - computer models are NOT proof. Only real world data is, a point which gets lost upon "believers".
quote
Here, we present evidence of recently accelerated SLR in a unique 1,000-km-long hotspot on the highly populated North American Atlantic coast north of Cape Hatteras AND show that it is consistent with a modelled fingerprint of dynamic SLR. Between 1950–1979 and 1980–2009, SLR rate increases in this northeast hotspot were ~ 3–4 times higher than the global average."
Don't worry I'm sure WUWT will have a rebuttal to try and prove otherwise or confuse the issue. We'll wait for your link.
Twenty-year-old models which have suggested serious ice loss in the eastern Antarctic have been compared with reality for the first time - and found to be wrong, so much so that it now appears that no ice is being lost at all.
"Previous ocean models ... have predicted temperatures and melt rates that are too high, suggesting a significant mass loss in this region that is actually not taking place," says Tore Hattermann of the Norwegian Polar Institute, member of a team which has obtained two years' worth of direct measurements below the massive Fimbul Ice Shelf in eastern Antarctica - the first ever to be taken.
According to a statement from the American Geophysical Union, announcing the new research:
It turns out that past studies, which were based on computer models without any direct data for comparison or guidance, overestimate the water temperatures and extent of melting beneath the Fimbul Ice Shelf. This has led to the misconception, Hattermann said, that the ice shelf is losing mass at a faster rate than it is gaining mass, leading to an overall loss of mass.
The team’s results show that water temperatures are far lower than computer models predicted ...
Hatterman and his colleagues, using 12 tons of hot-water drilling equipment, bored three holes more than 200m deep through the Fimbul Shelf, which spans an area roughly twice the size of New Jersey. The location of each hole was cunningly chosen so that the various pathways by which water moves beneath the ice shelf could be observed, and instruments were lowered down.
The boffins also supplemented their data craftily by harvesting info from a biology project, the Marine Mammal Exploration of the Oceans Pole to Pole (MEOP) effort, which had seen sensor packages attached to elephant seals.
"Nobody was expecting that the MEOP seals from Bouvetoya would swim straight to the Antarctic and stay along the Fimbul Ice Shelf for the entire winter," Hattermann says. "But this behaviour certainly provided an impressive and unique data set."
Normally, getting sea temperature readings along the shelf in winter would be dangerous if not impossible due to shifting pack ice - but the seals were perfectly at home among the grinding floes.
Overall, according to the team, their field data shows "steady state mass balance" on the eastern Antarctic coasts - ie, that no ice is being lost from the massive shelves there. The research is published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
This is good news indeed, as some had thought that huge amounts of ice were melting from the region, which might mean accelerated rates of sea level rise in future.
An enormous Antarctic ice shelf is melting slower than scientists previously thought, and they wouldn't have been able to figure out the real rate of melting without the help of elephant seals.
The Fimbul Ice Shelf, located along eastern Antarctica in the Weddell Sea, is the sixth-largest of the 43 ice shelves that dapple Antarctica's perimeter. Ice shelves are floating chunks of ice that act as icy doorstops for the glaciers that flow into them. If an ice shelf is melting rapidly, the glacier behind it may flow faster into the sea, contributing to sea level rise.
It's particularly important to know whether or not the Fimbul Ice Shelf is melting because of both its size and proximity to the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, the largest ice sheet on Earth. If that ice sheet melted, the water it generated could lead to extreme changes in sea level.
Computer models had previously showed significant melting of the Fimbul Ice Shelf. Scientists sought to check the model by taking direct measurements around the ice shelf.
Drilling and elephant seals
Scientists drilled several deep holes into the shelf, which spans an arearoughly twice the size of New Jersey, to directly assess how quickly the ice is melting. This provided them with a partial understanding of what was going on; namely that water there was colder than expected by previous models, said Norwegian Polar Institute researcher Tore Hattermann in a statement.
But to untangle the web of complicated processes that govern melting, the scientists needed a detailed record of annual water cycles and circulation around eastern Antarctica, where the ice shelf is located.
Enter nine male elephant seals outfitted with sensors that measure salinity, temperature and depth. The sensors were attached to the seal by a different research group from the same institution in a separate study, but it turned out the migrating seals gathered just the data need to fill the missing blanks about the Fimbul Ice Shelf. [Images: Antarctic Seals Go Where Scientists Can't]
The seal's trek took them from Bouvet Island, in the middle of the Southern Ocean, to the outskirts of the ice shelf, a distance of 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers), which was a longer distance than expected for the blubbery beasts.
"Nobody was expecting that these seals from Bouvet Island would swim straight to the Antarctic and stay along the Fimbul Ice Shelf for the entire winter," Hattermann said. "But, this behavior certainly provided an impressive and unique data set."
Colder water
From the "seal data," the scientists accumulated enough knowledge concerning the area's water circulation and how it changes over the seasons to construct the most complete picture of how the Fimbul Ice Shelf is melting — or freezing — from the bottom up.
Past studies, which were based on computer models without any direct data for comparison or guidance, overestimated the water temperatures and extent of melting beneath the ice shelf. This led to the misconception that the ice shelf is losing mass at a faster rate than it is gaining mass, Hattermann said. The drill and seal measurements were corroborated by satellite measurements.
Because wind patterns and water cycles are similar for large parts of eastern Antarctica, Hattermann said, his team's results could help predict the next time when a section of the Fimbul Ice Shelf, or other ice shelves along the eastern coast of Antarctica, may break off.
ROTILMFO (Rolling On The Ice Laughing My Flippers Off)
Ice shelves continually grown and as they grow out into the ocean they come in contact with warmer water flowing from more northerly areas. They then break off and drift and melt. This is an ongoing process. To claim there is no such process would assume the situation was static, which it is not.
The seals know this very well and are accustomed to it. It is too bad the Global Warming Extremists and conspirators aren't seals
Ohhhhh I see so making homes more energy effecient and trying to create jobs is outrageous and crap. Hate to tell you but even if you deny Climate Change it still make sense to retrofit houses to become better energy users. Just the price of oil alone would make that a good thing.
Basic economics tells us that government cannot increase employment.
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of Barrow, Alaska, reached 400 parts per million (ppm) this spring, according to NOAA measurements, the first time a monthly average measurement for the greenhouse gas attained the 400 ppm mark in a remote location. . . .
“The northern sites in our monitoring network tell us what is coming soon to the globe as a whole,” said Pieter Tans, an atmospheric scientist with NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) in Boulder, Colo. “We will likely see global average CO2 concentrations reach 400 ppm about 2016.”
Carbon dioxide at six other remote northern sites in NOAA’s international cooperative air sampling network also reached 400 ppm at least once this spring: at a second site in Alaska and others in Canada, Iceland, Finland, Norway, and an island in the North Pacific.
Measurements at all those remote sites reflect background levels of CO2, influenced by long-term human emissions around the world, but not directly by emissions from a nearby population center. At other more locally influenced sites in NOAA’s network, such as Cape May, N.J., upwind cities influence CO2 concentrations, which have exceeded 400 ppm in spring for several years.
In other words, atmospheric CO2 levels are now at the highest level since they started to monitor it.
This NOAA report concludes with:
Carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas. NOAA calculates the Annual Greenhouse Gas Index every year, which takes into account the heating effects of other gases that are emitted from human activities (e.g., methane, nitrous oxide, and chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons). When those gases are also considered, the global atmosphere reached a CO2 equivalent concentration of 400 ppm in 1985; and 450 ppm in 2003. Atmospheric CO2 levels are currently higher than they have been at any time during the last 800,000 years.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-17-2012).]
Only 2% of our northern neighbors are climate change deniers. The truth will out eventually and some people here are going to feel a bit silly when it reachs the point where there is no longer deniability.
We quantify forcing and feedbacks across available CMIP5 coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation models (AOGCMs) by analysing simulations forced by an abrupt quadrupling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. This is the first application of the linear forcing-feedback regression analysis of Gregory et al. (2004) to an ensemble of AOGCMs. The range of equilibrium climate sensitivity is 2.1 - 4.7 K. Differences in cloud feedbacks continue to be important contributors to this range. Some models show small deviations from a linear dependence of top-of-atmosphere radiative fluxes on global surface temperature change. We show that this phenomenon largely arises from shortwave cloud radiative effects over the ocean and is consistent with independent estimates of forcing using fixed sea-surface temperature methods. We suggest that future research should focus more on understanding transient climate change, including any time-scale dependence of the forcing and/or feedback, rather than on the equilibrium response to large instantaneous forcing.
1. There are not more and more violent hurricanes 2. There are no drowning and starving polar bears 3. The oceans have not inundated New York and are in fact consistent with past performance 4. The earth's mean temperature has not increased as predicted, and in fact has dipped a few times.
In short, the claims of CO2 causing global catastrophy and anthropologic causes for global climate variations are pure hooey.
1. There are not more and more violent hurricanes 2. There are no drowning and starving polar bears 3. The oceans have not inundated New York and are in fact consistent with past performance 4. The earth's mean temperature has not increased as predicted, and in fact has dipped a few times.
In short, the claims of CO2 causing global catastrophy and anthropologic causes for global climate variations are pure hooey.
Arn
How's that arctic ice that you love to quote doing?
"So how is the Arctic sea ice doing?" newf asks.. Not good. This is the very latest:
quote
The Arctic Ocean’s ice cover is shrinking at a record pace this year after higher-than-average temperatures hastened the annual break-up of the sea ice.
The area of ocean covered by ice shrank to 4.93 million square kilometers (1.9 million square miles) on average for the five days through Aug. 15, according to the latest data from the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado. With as many as five weeks of the annual melt season left, it’s already the fourth-lowest annual minimum ever measured.
“Unless the melting really, really slows down, there’s a very real chance of a record,” Walt Meier, a research scientist at the NSIDC, said in a telephone interview. “In the last week or so it’s dropped precipitously. There’s definitely a chance it’ll dip below 4 million square kilometers.”
The shrinkage is the most visible sign of global warming according to Meier, and raises the prospect that the Arctic Ocean may become largely ice free in the summer. That opens up new shipping routes and is sparking a race for resources that’s led to Cairn Energy Plc (CNE) and Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSA) exploring waters off Greenland for oil and gas.
An ice free Arctic, wide open for new shipping routes and new oil and gas exploration. Sounds good! Just what we need..
quote
The increasing melt may be a harbinger of greater changes such as the release of methane compounds from frozen soils that could exacerbate warming, and a thaw of the Greenland ice sheet, which would contribute to rising sea levels, NASA’s top climate scientist, James Hansen, said in an e-mail interview.
“Our greatest concern is that loss of Arctic sea ice creates a grave threat of passing two other tipping points -- the potential instability of the Greenland ice sheet and methane hydrates,” Hansen said. “These latter two tipping points would have consequences that are practically irreversible on time scales of relevance to humanity.”
The United Nations estimates the Greenland ice sheet contains enough water to raise global sea levels by about seven meters (23 feet), though melting would take thousands of years.
I put "tipping points" in boldface: Positive warming feedbacks. At least, many say..
quote
This year’s melt has been fueled by Arctic temperatures 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) to 3 degrees Celsius warmer than in a typical year from June through mid-August ...
I think that many of the climate scientists have been saying that the first place to look for AGW significant temperature increases is in the polar regions.
But it's not getting any hotter, recently..? I dunno. It's hard to tease out significant temperature shifts from the noise of random variability, but just a few days ago I posted these reports:
I don't pretend to know for sure. The most relevant reports are (unfortunately) well over my head--as I demonstrated earlier today.
I think that many PFF posters would like to find that one "silver bullet" that completely shoots down AGW--but they can't. Whatever analysis they quote, another one comes out in a matter of days, weeks or sometimes months to counter it. And then that one is countered by a new "anti-AGW" analysis. And so on ...
So the climate debate won't end any time soon. The challenge for policy makers is to define courses of action that make the best overall sense, no matter what future direction the climate debate may follow.
More coal? More natural gas? More oil? More wind energy? Whatever we would wish for, it all seems to entail at least the prospect of more damage to the natural environment--aside from just the hotly disputed "carbon dioxide" effects.
Memo to pro-natural gas posters: Don't forget methane leakage into the atmosphere. That's still being researched and debated.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-18-2012).]
You're right, Arn. It is gobbledygook. Here is what they're saying in that paragraph of bafflespeak:
1. We made a computer model on forcing and feedbacks based on a fast, FOUR TIMES increase of CO2 (which isn't even CLOSE to what is really happening).
2. They are applying their NEW computer model to a bunch of OLD computer models (the reason of which, presumably, is to explain why the old models never work on the real world data or on future projections).
3. Their models show deviations from reality which they can't explain.
4. More research is need to figure out WHY we can't get it right.
quote
What settles it for me is that
1. There are not more and more violent hurricanes 2. There are no drowning and starving polar bears 3. The oceans have not inundated New York and are in fact consistent with past performance 4. The earth's mean temperature has not increased as predicted, and in fact has dipped a few times.
In short, the claims of CO2 causing global catastrophy and anthropologic causes for global climate variations are pure hooey.
Arn
Rusty can post all the pro-warmist stuff he wants. It is all from scientists who are trying to justify their warming grants. The most significant things are are the real world data which shows:
Temperatures are FLAT for well over 10 years while CO2 has steadily increased
The "R squared" correlation of temperature to CO2 over the 20th century (I don't think this includes the last 10 years, btw) is about 40%, while the R squared correlation of temperature to the PDO/AMO is over 80%, and there is no evidence that PDO/AMO are being driven by CO2.
Surface and satellite data versus CO2, last 10 years (to 2008)
Table of correlation comparisons of all factors
=====================================
So, CO2 is a poor match for the last 100+ years, for the last 10 years, and that hasn't been changing in the last few years. There are actually GOOD explainations (better correlations) for the entire period, none of which are CO2. And THAT is why I say "game, set, match". Because CO2 is the WORST possible cause of the warming, based on the real world data.
Polar ice has a melt every summer. The infamous Northwest Passage is still not navigable in the winter.
The shrinkage of the ice field has to do with ocean currents, not air temperature and it is cyclical.
And, don't remember we are still on the trailing edge of the last ice age. Of course the ice fields in the Arctic should shrink some.
The facts are simple. The earth goes through heating a cooling and other climatic activity which has nothing to do with how people conduct themselves. It has more to do with the earth's dependence on the Sun and the Sun's activity. Solar storms and the corona holes have more to do with July being hot in North America, than virtually anything else.
While NASA climate alarmist James Hansen insists record summer heat and drought are caused by man-made global warming, leaked internal emails from just three summers ago reveal that he and his colleagues expressed alarm that the planet was inexplicably cooling.
Hansen, often called the “godfather of global warming,” asserted earlier this month that blistering heat across the United States is so rare that it can’t be anything but the man-made global warming he has been warning about for decades.
“This is not some scientific theory,” he told the Associated Press. “We are now experiencing scientific fact.”
But in 2009, as the thermometer hit record lows in America, he and other climate scientists panicked in a flurry of emails: “Skeptics will be all over us – the world is really cooling, the models are no good.”
They lamented that Mother Nature was not cooperating with their predictions that global temperatures would smash heat records last decade. They blamed their miscalculation on sulfate emission trajectories and revised their forecast to show a cooling trend lasting until 2020.
Then, they predicted, global warming would return with a vengeance.
In an Oct. 12, 2009, email to Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, fellow warming alarmist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., asked, “Where the heck is global warming?”
“We have been asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record,” he added. “The Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday[sic] and then played last night in below freezing weather.”
Then Trenberth dropped a bombshell: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
He ended by admitting the global warming “data are surely wrong.”
“Our observing system is inadequate,” he wrote.
The leaked emails were obtained from the computer server at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain. Some of the scientists there were copied in the emails between Trenberth and Hansen.
Critics say the hacked messages show that climatologists in the U.S. and U.K. have engaged in a conspiracy to manufacture a case that global warming is occurring due to auto and factory and other emissions related to human activities.
Critics say Hansen, who has called for a worldwide tax on carbon emissions and advocated a ban on the construction of coal-fired power plants, is an activist with a political agenda.
Ignoring the record-breaking 2009 cooling period, Hansen recently argued that the evidence for human-made global warming is “overwhelming.”
“We can say with high confidence that such extreme anomalies would not have occurred in the absence of global warming,” he said.
Left unexplained, however, is the 2009 cooling anomaly.
Trenberth, for his part, later explained that while most of the planet experienced record cooling that year, “there were exceptional conditions in Southern Australia,” where temperatures rose.
He now says the record heat wave is proof of “global warming from the human influences on climate.”
“This is a view of the future,” Trenberth warned last month in a PBS interview. “So watch out.”
His analysis, however, ignores cool spots such as the Pacific Northwest, where Washington and Alaska have experienced the coldest spring and summer on record.
.
