"This figure shows the degree to which carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions persist in the atmosphere over time.
The lifetime of a gas in the atmosphere is generally known as its "residence time", but unlike other greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide does not undergo a simple decline over a single predictable timescale. Instead, the excess carbon is first diluted by the carbon cycle as it mixes into the oceans and biosphere (e.g. plants) over a period of a few hundred years, and then it is slowly removed over hundreds of thousands of years as it is gradually incorporated into carbonate rocks.
The dilution of carbon is such that only 15-30% is expected to remain in the atmosphere after 200 years, with most of the rest being either incorporated into plants or dissolved into the oceans. This leads to a new equilibrium being established; however, the total amount of carbon in the ocean-atmosphere-biosphere system remains elevated. To restore the system to a normal level, the excess carbon must be incorporated into carbonate rocks through geologic processes that progress exceedingly slowly. As a result, it is estimated that between 3 and 7% of carbon added to the atmosphere today will still be in the atmosphere after 100,000 years (Archer 2005, Lenton & Britton 2006). This is supported by studies of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, a large naturally occurring release of carbon 55 million years ago that apparently took ~200,000 years to fully return to pre-event conditions (Zachos et al. 2001)." Source.
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: A PH level of 8.1 of sea water is in the normal range
Does your brain process anything you post? The oceans are becoming more acidic because the acid content is increasing. The ENTIRE RANGE of oceanic pH has to shift to a more acidic spectrum. That should have just been common sense.
The pH of the oceans is not exactly homogeneous everywhere. Did you not see 'upwellings' in this post?
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: anyone claiming that a level of 8.1 and the oceans becoming acidic are simply fear mongering and going for the big headline, but are probably cherry picking data.
No one has claimed a pH of 8 is an acid.
Ocean acidification is just what it's called. More acid is being added to the ocean. Very simple concept.
"Since the industrial revolution, ocean acidity has increased by 30%." Source.
"Now, so much carbon dioxide has been absorbed by the ocean that the chemistry of seawater is changing, causing the ocean to become more acidic" Source.
"The ocean is becoming more acidic due to increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere" Source.
"Ocean acidification is the process by which pH levels of seawater decrease due to greater amounts of carbon dioxide being absorbed by the oceans from the atmosphere." Source.
"Marine surface waters are being acidified due to uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide" Source.
"Ocean acidity is rising as sea water absorbs more carbon dioxide" Source.
"This manuscript examines how Earth’s oceans absorb CO2, how CO2 affects the acidity of seawater" Source.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: For for the issue of coral reefs dying because of CO2, another fear mongering tactic.
It's not fear mongering. You can't ignore future impacts because the 'world hasn't come to an end' yet.
At the rate of current emissions reef building is expected to cease by 2100. Source.
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Coral reefs are dying at the hands of man, but CO2 absorption and sea water turning to acid has nothing to do with it. Has more to do with sediments and algae growth blocking out sunlight. This is what they found when real study was done on the cause and not simply jumping to the conclusion that "Global Warming" was to blame.
"Global warming is also increasing rainfall variability (source), resulting in more frequent intense drought breaking floods that carry particularly high nutrient and sediment loads (source). River runoff of nutrients and sediments directly affects about 15% of reefs. On these reefs, coral cover does not directly depend on water quality; however, reefs exposed to poor water clarity and elevated nutrient concentrations show significant increases in macroalgal cover.." Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-27-2013).]
Yes, that’s right. They deny the climate. They make a living out of trying to predict what the climate is going to be, but they deny the climate. Whatever that means.
What it means to liberals is that these individuals reject the myth theory that humans are causing the Earth to heat up by burning “fossil fuels.” [Is “fossil fuel” a misnomer?] If that’s true, that man is causing the Earth to heat up, and the burning of fossil fuels is to blame, then that means that we can control the outcome. We can prevent the end of the world from happening by placing restrictions on people’s greenhouse gas emissions. If we cap it enough, global warming will slow down, and hopefully if we catch it in time, it’ll stop.
But it’ll take a lot of taxes; a lot of oil and gas price-fixing; a lot of taxpayer-funded, bankrupt and failed “green” energy initiatives; a lot of “sacrifices” to offer people enough incentives to wean them off fossil fuels to prevent our near-certain doom.
What liberals see in this global warming alarmism is money and power. More controls over people. It has nothing to do with keeping the environment clean or preventing a global warming zombie apocalypse. It has everything to do with controlling people in the same way that Obamacare wants to control, monitor and track people’s health. Acceptance of the anthropogenic global warming myth means more regulations, mandates and bureaucratic red tape. And loss of freedom.
The global warming scam became a little more apparent than it already was when even the most diehard doomsday climate alarmists admitted that they don’t understand why there’s been at least a 15-year lull in warming in spite of record greenhouse gas emissions. It makes no sense. Unless humans aren’t causing anything after all.
But they know that isn’t true, so there must be some explanation. I’m sure they’ll come up with a question-begging theory much like punctuated equilibrium to satisfy their conscience and maintain their self-delusion.
A survey administered by the American Meteorological Society found that 48% of its members did not believe in manmade global warming. The remaining 52% did. The study also found that (not surprisingly) liberal meteorologists tended to believe in manmade global warming, and the non-liberal ones tended not to believe in it.
The author of the survey Neil Stenhouse of George Mason University wrote:
“Political ideology was the factor next most strongly associated with meteorologists’ views about global warming. This also goes against the idea of scientists’ opinions being entirely based on objective analysis of the evidence, and concurs with previous studies that have shown scientists’ opinions on topics to vary along with their political orientation. The result suggests that members of professional scientific organizations have not been immune to influence by the political polarization on climate change that has affected politicians and the general public.”
People have the same kind of connection to their political party of choice that they do with their football team of choice. Liberals will assuage their self-delusions about manmade global warming by telling themselves that it’s “science” and calling those who don’t accept the myth “anti-science” and “climate deniers.” But really, it just has to do with being a faithful cheerleader for their political team.
Survey: Half Of Meteorologists Are “Climate Deniers”
Utter hogwash! ... and a blatant misrepresentation of the actual AMS survey, in which 89% of the respondents report they accept that global warming is occurring, 7% "don't know" (or "no opinion/declined to answer"), and only 4% deny that GW is happening.
quote
"Yes, that’s right. They deny the climate. ... A survey administered by the American Meteorological Society found that 48% of its members did not believe in manmade global warming. The remaining 52% did."
Results from the actual survey (all respondents, N = 1821):
"GW is not happening" = 4% "Don't know if GW is happening [or not happening]" = 7% "Yes [GW is happening]; Don't know cause" = 1% "Yes [GW is happening]; Insufficient evidence [as to cause]" = 20% "Yes [GW is happening]; Mostly natural [causes]" = 5% "Yes [GW is happening]; Equally human and natural [causes]" = 10% "Yes [GW is happening]; Mostly human [causes]" = 52%
The percentage of respondents favoring human activity as the primary contributor to GW was somewhat higher among experts in "Climate Science" (N = 232) than the percentage whose expertise is in "Meteorology and Atmospheric Science" (N = 1203).
"... if you have read articles or blog posts related to this study, my suggestion is simple. Rather than take someone else’s interpretation of the survey results, read the paper yourself and draw your own conclusions. It is freely available [at the ametsoc.org web site] as an Early Online Release.
"A difference between the AMS and some organizations is the transparency and scientific integrity with which we operate. This survey was conducted to satisfy scientific curiosity on an important topic and the results are published for all to see. This is the way science is meant to work." ~ Keith L. Seitter, AMS Executive Director
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 12-04-2013).]
Originally posted by avengador1: Survey: Half Of Meteorologists Are “Climate Deniers”
Inaccurate and deliberately misleading.
I already reported this survey here as I was sure the fake skeptics would go into damage control mode, as you just did.
The level of damage control fake skeptics are going to has prompted the Executive Director of the American Meteorological Association Keith L. Seitter to address it publicly.
Going to the Source for Accurate Information: "Earlier this week, the Heartland Institute appears to have sent an extensive e-mail blast with what is more or less a press release for a paper that will appear in an upcoming issue of BAMS entitled “Meteorologists’ Views about Global Warming: A Survey of American Meteorological Society Professional Members” (in full disclosure, I am a coauthor on this paper). A disturbing aspect of this e-mail is that it seems some effort was placed in making it appear to have been sent by AMS. It was sent from an e-mail account with AMS in the name (though not from the “ametsoc.org” domain) and featured the AMS logo prominently (used without permission from AMS). Only in the fine print at the bottom was it clear that this apparently came from the Heartland Institute. The text of the e-mail reports results from the study far differently than I would, leaving an impression that is at odds with how I would characterize those results."
Just more underhanded practices from the Heartland Institute - the political lobbyist organization fierobear cited in his opening post in this thread.
By the (self-appointed) power vested in me, I reconvene the FPCC (Fiero Panel on Climate Change) for its 3,286th working session.
Looks like "the bear" is hibernating(?)
Actually, I wanted to acknowledge this post from fierobear, which presents evidence that fluctuations or some positive deltas in solar irradiance are explanatory for global warming, from 1840 to present.
I remain--wait for it--somewhat skeptical. The Hockey Schtick says:
quote
Although solar reconstructions and absolute sunspot numbers show a 20th century peak in the 1950's, the time-integral of accumulated solar energy shows a marked increase over the 20th century that, along with ocean oscillations, explains 90 to 96% of temperature observations over the past 163 years...
If this paper isn't outright dismissed by the "usual suspects" (the MMGW crew), I foresee that it could be partially accepted, but that range of 90-to-96 percent of observed warming from elevated solar input could be reduced (by carefully reasoned numerical revisions) downwards to about 50 percent. I think this would actually jive with a verse in the latest IPCC that goes like this--if memory serves me:
"We are certain that at least half of the global warming observed since 1950 (or something like that) is MMGW."
I don't think that this is going to shift the focus away from CO2 as the main factor in GW, from present, forward to 2100.
Higher solar input equals global warming. Higher solar input, plus continuing elevation of atmospheric CO2 levels, equals EXTRA MORE global warming. That's the slot on the roulette wheel where most of the players will be placing their bets (IMO), if there is some general acceptance of this new report about solar irradiance.
HAGO.
This is post # 3286.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-06-2013).]
Real risk of a Maunder minimum 'Little Ice Age' says leading scientist Monday 28 October 2013, 06:22
Paul HudsonPaul Hudson
Share Facebook Twitter COMMENTS (183) It’s known by climatologists as the ‘Little Ice Age’, a period in the 1600s when harsh winters across the UK and Europe were often severe.
The severe cold went hand in hand with an exceptionally inactive sun, and was called the Maunder solar minimum.
Now a leading scientist from Reading University has told me that the current rate of decline in solar activity is such that there’s a real risk of seeing a return of such conditions.
I’ve been to see Professor Mike Lockwood to take a look at the work he has been conducting into the possible link between solar activity and climate patterns.
According to Professor Lockwood the late 20th century was a period when the sun was unusually active and a so called ‘grand maximum’ occurred around 1985.
Since then the sun has been getting quieter.
By looking back at certain isotopes in ice cores, he has been able to determine how active the sun has been over thousands of years.
Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years.
He found 24 different occasions in the last 10,000 years when the sun was in exactly the same state as it is now - and the present decline is faster than any of those 24.
I worked as a forecaster with the Met Office for nearly 15 years locally and at the international unit, after graduating with first class honours in Geophysics and Planetary physics at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne in 1992. I then joined the BBC in October 2007, where I divide my time between forecasting and reporting on stories about climate change and its implications for people's everyday lives.
Hudson also acknowledges Michael Mann's 2001 reports, however it should be noted that Hudson has been in his field only 15 years. When he entered his field the conventional thinking in the GW enthusiasts was that the Arctic Ice would be gone this year. It wasn't...... We also have impirical evidence that we have no net warming since he started his work. So if we look at the reduction in solar output during that era, he has an understandable concern about further cooling. He is not a cooling extremist. He is saying there is a potential percentage chance of a mini ice age.
Those people who aver that man’s activity affects climate on a global scale rather than just locally or regionally appear to accept that the existing climate models are incomplete. It is a given that the existing models do not fully incorporate data or mechanisms involving cloudiness or global albedo (reflectivity) variations or variations in the speed of the hydrological cycle and that the variability in the temperatures of the ocean surfaces and the overall ocean energy content are barely understood and wholly inadequately quantified in the infant attempts at coupled ocean/atmosphere models. Furthermore the effect of variability in solar activity on climate is barely understood and similarly unquantified.
The models currently assume a generally static global energy budget with relatively little internal system variability so that measurable changes in the various input and output components can only occur from external forcing agents such as changes in the CO2 content of the air caused by human emissions or perhaps temporary after effects from volcanic eruptions, meteorite strikes or significant changes in solar power output.
If such simple models are to have any practical utility it is necessary to demonstrate that some predictive skill is a demonstrable outcome of the models. Unfortunately it is apparent that there is no predictive skill whatever despite huge advances in processing power and the application of millions or even billions of man hours from reputable and experienced scientists over many decades.
Virtually all climate variability is a result of internal system variability (though provoked from outside the Earth system by solar variation) and additionally the system not only sets up a large amount of variability internally but also provides mechanisms to limit and then reduce that internal variability. It must be so or we would not still have liquid oceans. The current models neither fully recognise the presence of that internal system variability nor the processes that ultimately stabilise it.
Originally posted by rinselberg: Actually, I wanted to acknowledge this post from fierobear, which presents evidence that fluctuations or some positive deltas in solar irradiance are explanatory for global warming, from 1840 to present.
The post of fierobear's you quoted is discussing interplanetary magnetic field not solar irradiance. I discussed this here.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: If this paper isn't outright dismissed by the "usual suspects" (the MMGW crew),
The subject of this sentence, "this paper" in reference to what you put in quotes is actually a guest blog post here.
Which cites this link as the source for the graph.
The graph has nothing to do with the interplanetary magnetic field paper written by Michael Lockwood.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: I foresee that it could be partially accepted, but that range of 90-to-96 percent of observed warming from elevated solar input could be reduced (by carefully reasoned numerical revisions) downwards to about 50 percent.
Except average 'solar input' has been practically flat the last 30 years and even decreased in recent years: Source.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: When he entered his field the conventional thinking in the GW enthusiasts was that the Arctic Ice would be gone this year. It wasn't......
Al Gore does not count as "conventional thinking". Where's your source for this?
How can you sit there and deny the simple fact that the Arctic has been losing ice for 30 years now?
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: We also have impirical evidence that we have no net warming since he started his work.
Cowtan and Way 2013 study confirms HadCRU is underestimating warming due to lack of coverage. Met Office weighs in: "The new paper suggests that the global average warming trend from 1997 to 2012 could be up to 2.5 times greater than the trend using HadCRUT4 alone." Source.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: He is saying there is a potential percentage chance of a mini ice age.
There's a decrease in solar output yet ocean warming marches onward. Where's all the warming coming from then? This is not what 'global cooling' looks like: Source.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: The problem with existing climate models:
Flyinfieros again, deny deny deny, offer nothing to disprove, offer nothing to show the ice is not there after all. Cast doubts on historical information known to all, bafflegab and again
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Flyinfieros again, deny deny deny, offer nothing to disprove, offer nothing to show the ice is not there after all. Cast doubts on historical information known to all, bafflegab and bs again
Six years ago, the United Nations issued a dramatic warning that the world would have to cope with 50 million climate refugees by 2010. But now that those migration flows have failed to materialize, the UN has distanced itself from the forecasts. On the contrary, populations are growing in the regions that had been identified as environmental danger zones.
In October 2005, UNU said: "Amid predictions that by 2010 the world will need to cope with as many as 50 million people escaping the effects of creeping environmental deterioration, United Nations University experts say the international community urgently needs to define, recognize and extend support to this new category of 'refugee.'"
It added that "such problems as sea level rise, expanding deserts and catastrophic weather-induced flooding have already contributed to large permanent migrations and could eventually displace hundreds of millions."
In 2008, Srgjan Kerim, president of the UN General Assembly, said it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010. A UNEP web page showed a map of regions where people were likely to be displaced by the ravages of global warming. It has recently been taken offline but is still visible in a Google cache.
Scientists have been claiming for years that some 25 million people have already been displaced by adverse environmental conditions. Drought, storms and floods have always plagued parts of the world's population. The environmentalist Norman Myers, a professor at Oxford University, has been particularly bold in his forecasts. At a conference in Prague in 2005, he predicted there would be 50 million climate refugees by 2010.
"As far back as 1995 (latest date for a comprehensive assessment), these environmental refugees totalled at least 25 million people, compared with 27 million traditional refugees (people fleeing political oppression, religious persecution and ethnic troubles)," Myers said. "The environmental refugees total could well double between 1995 and 2010."
"When global warming takes hold," he added, "there could be as many as 200 million people overtaken by disruptions of monsoon systems and other rainfall regimes, by droughts of unprecedented severity and duration, and by sea-level rise and coastal flooding." Myers' report may have been the basis for the UN statements in 2005.
Of course none of this has happened. Just like, the ice is still there. Just like the oceans have not risen more than normal, just like the polar bear population continues to increase, just like this year has the lowest hurricane records and tropical storm records in the Atlantic in many years, Just like Flyinfieros is typically full of hot air.
Arn
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 12-06-2013).]
Originally posted by Arns85GT: How about reading instead of just blindly striking out?
Take your own advice:
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: deny deny deny, deflect, deny somemore, criticize, deflect, oh yeah, and deny deny deny
You avoided every single question I directly asked you. This is a textbook example of a tu quoque.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Of course none of this has happened. Just like, the ice is still there. Just like the oceans have not risen more than normal, just like the polar bear population continues to increase, just like this year has the lowest hurricane records and tropical storm records in the Atlantic in many years, Just like Flyinfieros is typically full of hot air.
Flyinfieros, (if you have actually ever driven a Fiero or if you are even part of the Fiero community)
You ignore everything that you don't post. You are narcissistic, self absorbed and disrespectful to a fault. Example you ignored my last post entirely.
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "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." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.
The Trenberth letter tells us that "computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean." The ARGO system of diving buoys is providing increasingly reliable data on the temperature of the upper layers of the ocean, where much of any heat from global warming must reside. But much like the surface temperature shown in the graph, the heat content of the upper layers of the world's oceans is not increasing nearly as fast as IPCC models predict, perhaps not increasing at all. Why should we now believe exaggerating IPCC models that tell us of "missing heat" hiding in the one place where it cannot yet be reliably measured—the deep ocean?
and
There have been many times in the past when there were warmer decades. It may have been warmer in medieval times, when the Vikings settled Greenland, and when wine was exported from England. Many proxy indicators show that the Medieval Warming was global in extent. And there were even warmer periods a few thousand years ago during the Holocene Climate Optimum. The fact is that there are very powerful influences on the earth's climate that have nothing to do with human-generated CO2. The graph strongly suggests that the IPCC has greatly underestimated the natural sources of warming (and cooling) and has greatly exaggerated the warming from CO2.
and
The computer-model predictions of alarming global warming have seriously exaggerated the warming by CO2 and have underestimated other causes. Since CO2 is not a pollutant but a substantial benefit to agriculture, and since its warming potential has been greatly exaggerated, it is time for the world to rethink its frenzied pursuit of decarbonization at any cost.
These are just part of the argument made by
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antoninio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
Of course What they wrote is undoubtedly and totally invalid because ....... wait for it........ Flyinfieros knows better.
There are so many qualified scientists out there that debunk people like Flyinfieros and he is too arrogant and opinionated to accept it.
Of course, people like myself, and Fierobear are more open minded and objective unlike the sheep who accept every flaky suedo scientific theory that presents itself.
Arn
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 12-06-2013).]
Rather than quote me and respond to this post, or maybe this post, both of which directly address misleading and inaccurate statements of yours, you quote yourself posting an tu quoque fallacy. Then continue loudly shouting with brightly colored text more red herrings.
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "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." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.
The Trenberth letter tells us that "computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean." The ARGO system of diving buoys is providing increasingly reliable data on the temperature of the upper layers of the ocean, where much of any heat from global warming must reside. But much like the surface temperature shown in the graph, the heat content of the upper layers of the world's oceans is not increasing nearly as fast as IPCC models predict, perhaps not increasing at all. Why should we now believe exaggerating IPCC models that tell us of "missing heat" hiding in the one place where it cannot yet be reliably measured—the deep ocean?
and
There have been many times in the past when there were warmer decades. It may have been warmer in medieval times, when the Vikings settled Greenland, and when wine was exported from England. Many proxy indicators show that the Medieval Warming was global in extent. And there were even warmer periods a few thousand years ago during the Holocene Climate Optimum. The fact is that there are very powerful influences on the earth's climate that have nothing to do with human-generated CO2. The graph strongly suggests that the IPCC has greatly underestimated the natural sources of warming (and cooling) and has greatly exaggerated the warming from CO2.
and
The computer-model predictions of alarming global warming have seriously exaggerated the warming by CO2 and have underestimated other causes. Since CO2 is not a pollutant but a substantial benefit to agriculture, and since its warming potential has been greatly exaggerated, it is time for the world to rethink its frenzied pursuit of decarbonization at any cost.
These are just part of the argument made by
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antoninio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
Eco-warriors and media hype aside, the fact is, as we head into 2009, that the world's ice mass has been expanding not contracting. Which will surprise evening news junkies fed a diet of polar bears floating about on ice floes and snow shelves falling into the oceans. But if a whole series of reports on ice growth in the Arctic, the Antarctic and among glaciers are right, then it is truth in the mainstream media (MSM) that's in meltdown not the polar ice caps.
The problem for the MSM is that it long ago nailed its colors to the climate alarmist mast. No ice cap meltdown, no rising waters. No disappearing islands, no reason for alarm. No alarm, no story. Worst of all having called yet another global apocalypse wrong: No credibility. So the MSM has a significant stake in running highly selective warm-mongering headlines. Not to mention disparaging those scientists who have the temerity to disagree as 'holocaust deniers' and 'pseudo-scientists'.
There's nothing more the climate alarmist media loves than a 'melting Arctic' ice cap story. So why not stories from the far larger expanse of ice that is the 'melting' Antarctic? Well it might have something to do with the fact that the Antarctic ice grew to record levels in 2007 - and continues to grow. The Antarctic Climate scientist Dr Ben Herman, past director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and former head of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona, notes that for the media, "What happens in the Arctic may be an indicator of what will happen in the rest of the world. How about what happens in the Antarctic then? Since its ice area has been increasing, is this also an indicator of what might be happening in the rest of the world?" The FACT is that the majority of Antarctica has cooled over the past 50 years and ice coverage has grown to record levels. Take the well-publicized collapse of a 160 square mile block of the Wilkins Ice Shelf in Antarctica in March 2008. For the alarmist media this was conclusive proof of the dramatic global warming effects. The Los Angeles Times ran, 'Antarctica Collapse' referring to the "rapid melt of the Wilkins Shelf". The Sydney Morning Herald ran 'Ice Shelf Hangs By a Thread' and the Salon online news site had the absurd headline 'Bye-bye Antarctica?' But Joseph D'Aleo, first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and Chief Meteorologist at Weather Services International, was more prosaic. On his IceCap website, D'Aleo wrote that the collapse was the equivalent, given the enormity of Antarctica, of "an icicle falling from a snow and ice covered roof." He added, "The latest satellite images and reports suggest the ice has already refrozen around the broken pieces. In fact the ice is returning so fast, it is running an amazing 60 percent ahead of last year when it set a new record." Noting the ludicrous media hype, D`Aleo laments, "Yet the world is left with the false impression Antarctica's ice sheet is also starting to disappear."
Dr Herman adds an apposite footnote: "It is interesting that all of the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) stories concerning Antarctica are always about what's happening around the western peninsula, which seems to be the only place on Antarctica that has shown any warming." Herman asks, "How about the rest of the continent, which is probably about 95 percent of the land mass, not to mention the record sea ice coverage recently."
Former Colorado State Climatologist and current senior scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder, Dr Roger Pielke Sr is severely critical of the "typical bias that many journalists have." Pielke notes, "The media has ignored the increase in Antarctica sea ice cover in recent years, with at present, a coverage that is one million square kilometres above average."
While it is early winter in the Arctic, it is early summer in the Antarctic. Continuing patterns seen in recent years, Antarctic sea ice extent remains unusually high, near or above previous daily maximum values for each day in November. Sea ice is anomalously extensive across the Peninsula, the Amundsen Sea, and the Wilkes Land sectors. However, it has retreated in the northern Ross Sea region—where it had been far to the north of the mean ice edge—to more typical extent locations. Sea ice extent averaged 17.16 million square kilometers (6.63 million square miles) for November. The long-term 1981 to 2010 average extent for this month is 16.30 million square kilometers (6.29 million square miles).
What about the forecasted increased hurricane activity and strength?
The NOAA summary of the 2013 season says this
The 2013 Atlantic hurricane season, which officially ends on Saturday, Nov. 30, had the fewest number of hurricanes since 1982, thanks in large part to persistent, unfavorable atmospheric conditions over the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea, and tropical Atlantic Ocean. This year is expected to rank as the sixth-least-active Atlantic hurricane season since 1950, in terms of the collective strength and duration of named storms and hurricanes.
In May, the agency predicted an "active or extremely active" hurricane season, forecasting that there would be 7-11 hurricanes, 3-6 major hurricanes, and 13-20 named storms.
The year's final tally: 2 hurricanes, no major hurricanes, and 13 named storms... not even "close enough for government work."
This marked the 7th time in the past ten years that NOAA's hurricane forecast has been wrong and its epic failure this year rivals even its disastrous forecast in 2005, when it predicted there would be 7-9 hurricanes and there ended up being 15.
The Wall Street Journal published this in March of 2012, and some folks still don't get it
World temperatures have remained virtually unchanged in the past 10 years despite predictions of global warming and America’s mildest winter in decades, Princeton physics professor William Happer contends.
Weather patterns worldwide over the past few months were very similar to those in 1942 when the continental United States basked in a warm winter at the same time that Alaska and Asia were slammed with severe weather and “General Frost” stalled the German army’s advance into Russia, Happer wrote in a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed.
And any changes that have occurred should not be attributed to a rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, Happer, a prominent opponent of climate change theory, wrote in an article headlined “Global Warming Models Are Wrong Again.”
“CO2 is not a pollutant,” he wrote. “Life on earth flourished for hundreds of millions of years at much higher CO2 levels than we see today. Increasing CO2 levels will be a net benefit because cultivated plants grow better and are more resistant to drought at higher CO2 levels, and because warming and other supposedly harmful effects of CO2 have been greatly exaggerated.”
Global temperatures have increased by around four-fifths of one degree Celsius since the “Little Ice Age” of the early 1800s, he wrote. “Some of that warming has probably come from increased amounts of CO2, but the timing of the warming — much of it before CO2 levels had increased appreciably — suggests that a substantial fraction of the warming is from natural causes that have nothing to do with mankind.”
Recent severe tornadoes in the United States also prove nothing, Happer wrote. “Like winter temperatures, the numbers, severity and geographical locations of tornadoes fluctuate from year-to-year in ways that are correlated with the complicated fluid flow patterns of the oceans and atmosphere, the location of the jet stream, El Niño or La Niña conditions of the tropical Pacific Oceans, etc.
“As long as the laws of nature exist, we will have tornadoes,” he added. “But we can save many more lives by addressing the threat of tornadoes directly — for example, with improved and more widely dispersed weather radars, and with better means for warning the people of endangered areas — than by credulous support of schemes to reduce ‘carbon footprints,’ or by funding even more computer centers to predict global warming.”
Happer has become one of the most outspoken skeptics of global warming. He told Congress in 2009 that the increase in carbon dioxide “will be good for mankind.” The same year, he likened those who believe carbon dioxide is causing climate change to Nazis. “This is George Orwell. This is the ‘Germans are the master race. The Jews are the scum of the earth.’ It’s that kind of propaganda,” he said.
While it is early winter in the Arctic, it is early summer in the Antarctic. Continuing patterns seen in recent years, Antarctic sea ice extent remains unusually high, near or above previous daily maximum values for each day in November. Sea ice is anomalously extensive across the Peninsula, the Amundsen Sea, and the Wilkes Land sectors. However, it has retreated in the northern Ross Sea region—where it had been far to the north of the mean ice edge—to more typical extent locations. Sea ice extent averaged 17.16 million square kilometers (6.63 million square miles) for November. The long-term 1981 to 2010 average extent for this month is 16.30 million square kilometers (6.29 million square miles).
Myth: Ice covering much of Antarctica is expanding, contrary to the belief that the ice cap is melting due to global warming.
Science: The argument that ice is expanding on Antarctica omit the fact that there's a difference between land ice and sea ice, climate scientists say. "If you are talking about the Antarctic ice sheet, we expect some gain in accumulation in the interior due to warmer, more moisture-laden air, but increased calving/ice loss at the periphery, primarily due to warming southern oceans," climate scientist Michael Mann, of Pennsylvania State University, told LiveScience. The net change in ice mass is the difference between this accumulation and peripheral loss. "Models traditionally have projected that this difference doesn't become negative (i.e. net loss of Antarctic ice sheet mass) for several decades," Mann said, adding that detailed gravimetric measurements, which looks at changes in Earth's gravity over spots to estimate, among other things, ice mass. These measurements, Mann said, suggest the Antarctic ice sheet is already losing mass and contributing to sea level rise.
Now for sea ice, this type of ice is influenced by year-to-year changes in wind directions and changes in ocean currents. For sea ice, it's tricky to identify a clear trend, Mann said.
You really have to quit believing the Global Warming lobby and apologists. Try the NSIDC which is the government agency which posts the ice data from satellite survellance.
This is the pic from the Antarctic summer which I copied around 1 Jan this year.
Notice the median extent line at that time of year.
This is today's image
Again notice the median ice line.
When charted it looks like this
Notice that 2013 is well above 2012 and 2012 was pretty much bang on the median.
When the NSIDC remarks on "warm" conditions, they are still talking about "relative" "warm". Those inland Antarctic temperatures are still well below freezing. The somewhat milder cold promotes more snow fall ( at least that is what is supposed to happen) which adds to the ice depth.
Nothing is melting in the interior.
The Arctic is another story. It is still not back to normal but is moved up 5 places from being the smallest ice volume to 6th place on the 35 year scale.
Bear in mind that the ice field we are talking about at present is 3.95 million square miles having gained over 865,000 square miles in the month of November alone.
"According to findings from CDP’s annual disclosure process in 2013, many major publicly traded companies operating or based in the United States have integrated an “internal carbon price” as a core element in their ongoing business strategies. Such carbon pricing has become standard operating practice in business planning, in that the companies acknowledge the process of ongoing climate change - including extreme and unpredictable weather events - as a key relevant business factor for which they wish to be prepared."
"In figure 1 on page 3, where no price is shown, companies have stated that the specific price used is confidential business information. However, in responding to pertinent questions in the annual CDP disclosure questionnaire all cited an “internal carbon price” as a planning tool."
Of course US businesses have had to plan around a Carbon Tax. With Obumbles in office they had no choice. This is not a scientific consensus, it is a survival consensus.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Of course US businesses have had to plan around a Carbon Tax. With Obumbles in office they had no choice. This is not a scientific consensus, it is a survival consensus.
Arn
Quit being such an alarmist. Obama has nothing to do with this. It was entirely voluntary.
It shows a growing division in the Republican party: anti-science kooks vs realistic business leaders.
These things happen when a coalition investors holding 3 TRILLION in US assets start asking about your future business plans in a world of inevitable climate change policy. Playing dumb and pitching a conspiracy theory doesn't work at that level. Shareholders and investors will not tolerate that nonsense.
Just face it Arn. Global warming is real. The science is settled. Major companies expect a carbon tax as a way to control global warming.
The Wall Street Journal published this in March of 2012, and some folks still don't get it
World temperatures have remained virtually unchanged in the past 10 years despite predictions of global warming and America’s mildest winter in decades, Princeton physics professor William Happer contends.
Weather patterns worldwide over the past few months were very similar to those in 1942 when the continental United States basked in a warm winter at the same time that Alaska and Asia were slammed with severe weather and “General Frost” stalled the German army’s advance into Russia, Happer wrote in a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed.
And any changes that have occurred should not be attributed to a rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, Happer, a prominent opponent of climate change theory, wrote in an article headlined “Global Warming Models Are Wrong Again.”
“CO2 is not a pollutant,” he wrote. “Life on earth flourished for hundreds of millions of years at much higher CO2 levels than we see today. Increasing CO2 levels will be a net benefit because cultivated plants grow better and are more resistant to drought at higher CO2 levels, and because warming and other supposedly harmful effects of CO2 have been greatly exaggerated.”
Global temperatures have increased by around four-fifths of one degree Celsius since the “Little Ice Age” of the early 1800s, he wrote. “Some of that warming has probably come from increased amounts of CO2, but the timing of the warming — much of it before CO2 levels had increased appreciably — suggests that a substantial fraction of the warming is from natural causes that have nothing to do with mankind.”
Recent severe tornadoes in the United States also prove nothing, Happer wrote. “Like winter temperatures, the numbers, severity and geographical locations of tornadoes fluctuate from year-to-year in ways that are correlated with the complicated fluid flow patterns of the oceans and atmosphere, the location of the jet stream, El Niño or La Niña conditions of the tropical Pacific Oceans, etc.
“As long as the laws of nature exist, we will have tornadoes,” he added. “But we can save many more lives by addressing the threat of tornadoes directly — for example, with improved and more widely dispersed weather radars, and with better means for warning the people of endangered areas — than by credulous support of schemes to reduce ‘carbon footprints,’ or by funding even more computer centers to predict global warming.”
Happer has become one of the most outspoken skeptics of global warming. He told Congress in 2009 that the increase in carbon dioxide “will be good for mankind.” The same year, he likened those who believe carbon dioxide is causing climate change to Nazis. “This is George Orwell. This is the ‘Germans are the master race. The Jews are the scum of the earth.’ It’s that kind of propaganda,” he said.
What exactly is settled is that the Global Warming alarmist "scientists" were totally wrong.
What about the forecasted increased hurricane activity and strength?
The NOAA summary of the 2013 season says this
The 2013 Atlantic hurricane season, which officially ends on Saturday, Nov. 30, had the fewest number of hurricanes since 1982, thanks in large part to persistent, unfavorable atmospheric conditions over the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea, and tropical Atlantic Ocean. This year is expected to rank as the sixth-least-active Atlantic hurricane season since 1950, in terms of the collective strength and duration of named storms and hurricanes.
In May, the agency predicted an "active or extremely active" hurricane season, forecasting that there would be 7-11 hurricanes, 3-6 major hurricanes, and 13-20 named storms.
The year's final tally: 2 hurricanes, no major hurricanes, and 13 named storms... not even "close enough for government work."
This marked the 7th time in the past ten years that NOAA's hurricane forecast has been wrong and its epic failure this year rivals even its disastrous forecast in 2005, when it predicted there would be 7-9 hurricanes and there ended up being 15.
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 12-10-2013).]
Eco-warriors and media hype aside, the fact is, as we head into 2009, that the world's ice mass has been expanding not contracting. Which will surprise evening news junkies fed a diet of polar bears floating about on ice floes and snow shelves falling into the oceans. But if a whole series of reports on ice growth in the Arctic, the Antarctic and among glaciers are right, then it is truth in the mainstream media (MSM) that's in meltdown not the polar ice caps.
The problem for the MSM is that it long ago nailed its colors to the climate alarmist mast. No ice cap meltdown, no rising waters. No disappearing islands, no reason for alarm. No alarm, no story. Worst of all having called yet another global apocalypse wrong: No credibility. So the MSM has a significant stake in running highly selective warm-mongering headlines. Not to mention disparaging those scientists who have the temerity to disagree as 'holocaust deniers' and 'pseudo-scientists'.
There's nothing more the climate alarmist media loves than a 'melting Arctic' ice cap story. So why not stories from the far larger expanse of ice that is the 'melting' Antarctic? Well it might have something to do with the fact that the Antarctic ice grew to record levels in 2007 - and continues to grow. The Antarctic Climate scientist Dr Ben Herman, past director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and former head of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona, notes that for the media, "What happens in the Arctic may be an indicator of what will happen in the rest of the world. How about what happens in the Antarctic then? Since its ice area has been increasing, is this also an indicator of what might be happening in the rest of the world?" The FACT is that the majority of Antarctica has cooled over the past 50 years and ice coverage has grown to record levels. Take the well-publicized collapse of a 160 square mile block of the Wilkins Ice Shelf in Antarctica in March 2008. For the alarmist media this was conclusive proof of the dramatic global warming effects. The Los Angeles Times ran, 'Antarctica Collapse' referring to the "rapid melt of the Wilkins Shelf". The Sydney Morning Herald ran 'Ice Shelf Hangs By a Thread' and the Salon online news site had the absurd headline 'Bye-bye Antarctica?' But Joseph D'Aleo, first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and Chief Meteorologist at Weather Services International, was more prosaic. On his IceCap website, D'Aleo wrote that the collapse was the equivalent, given the enormity of Antarctica, of "an icicle falling from a snow and ice covered roof." He added, "The latest satellite images and reports suggest the ice has already refrozen around the broken pieces. In fact the ice is returning so fast, it is running an amazing 60 percent ahead of last year when it set a new record." Noting the ludicrous media hype, D`Aleo laments, "Yet the world is left with the false impression Antarctica's ice sheet is also starting to disappear."
Dr Herman adds an apposite footnote: "It is interesting that all of the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) stories concerning Antarctica are always about what's happening around the western peninsula, which seems to be the only place on Antarctica that has shown any warming." Herman asks, "How about the rest of the continent, which is probably about 95 percent of the land mass, not to mention the record sea ice coverage recently."
Former Colorado State Climatologist and current senior scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder, Dr Roger Pielke Sr is severely critical of the "typical bias that many journalists have." Pielke notes, "The media has ignored the increase in Antarctica sea ice cover in recent years, with at present, a coverage that is one million square kilometres above average."
The vast majority, almost 90 percent, of Earth's ice mass is in Antarctica, while the Greenland ice cap contains 10 percent of the total global ice mass. The Greenland ice cap is an interesting part of the water cycle. The ice cap became so large over time (about 600,000 cubic miles (mi3) or 2.5 million cubic kilometers (km3)) because more snow fell than melted. Over the millennia, as the snow got deeper, it compressed and became ice. The ice cap averages about 5,000 feet (1,500 meters) in thickness, but can be as thick as 14,000 feet (4,300 meters). The ice is so heavy that the land below it has been pressed down into the shape of a bowl. In many places, glaciers on Greenland reach to the sea, and one estimate is that as much as 125 mi3 (517 km3) of ice "calves" into the ocean each year—one of Greenland's contributions to the global water cycle. Ocean-bound icebergs travel with the currents, melting along the way. Some icebergs have been seen, in much smaller form, as far south as the island of Bermuda.
The reporters has access to the USGS data the same as us.
"Just because one spot on Earth has set records for cold that has little to do with global warming because it is one spot in one place, said Waleed Abdalati, an ice scientist at the University of Colorado and NASA's former chief scientist. Both Abdalati, who wasn't part of the measurement team, and Scambos said this is likely an unusual random reading in a place that hasn't been measured much before and could have been colder or hotter in the past and we wouldn't know.."
Dec 9, 7:23 PM EST
COLD DIS-COMFORT: ANTARCTICA SET RECORD OF -135.8 By Seth Borenstein, AP Science Writer
again
