 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Where's the Global Warming
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Bill D Date: 26 Jan 10 - 10:10 PM *big smile*...I had forgotten that classic of Russell. Thanks, Ed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ed T Date: 26 Jan 10 - 08:48 PM "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." - Bertrand Russell |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 26 Jan 10 - 07:45 PM The Global Land-Sea Temperature index from 1880-present from NASA and GIS: "Except for a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s, Earth's surface temperatures have increased since 1880. The last decade has brought the temperatures to the highest levels ever recorded. The graph shows global annual surface temperatures relative to 1951-1980 mean temperatures. As shown by the red line, long-term trends are more apparent when temperatures are averaged over a five year period. Credit: NASA/GISS" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Donuel Date: 26 Jan 10 - 05:53 PM Meanwhile the tundra continues to thaw for whatever reason it is doing so and releasing methane in historic proportions. The way life is, there is a good chance (actually a tenth of 1 percent) that a gamma ray burst will make all this talk seem trivial. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ed T Date: 26 Jan 10 - 05:51 PM Keep your eyes open for a story that seems to have been hidden by science, from you and me, and from the media. It involves the first man to walk on the Sun (but, it could have been a woman) ....no kidding....it happened in a naturally-occuring 10,000 low heat sun cycle. Records of this cycle was kept from the public, mainstream science, and media by vested scientific interests. But, it was too hot to hide forever...and one of the scientists broke ranks...and blew th e whistle. The World Weekly News is about to break this news story...but, you read it first here:) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Bill D Date: 26 Jan 10 - 04:51 PM ?? That's a lot to digest quickly.... Do you have a personal summation of what it is supposed to mean in relation to other ideas? I'd like to re-read it with some sort of notion of what I am expected to see. (like the abstract of a scientific paper.) Long copy & paste posts are far too easy to ignore without a reason to immerse one's self. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 26 Jan 10 - 03:58 PM Hockey Stick Gate: The Telegraph UK: Coming to light in recent days has been one of the most extraordinary scientific detective stories of our time, bizarrely centred on a single tree in Siberia dubbed "the most influential tree in the world". [YAD061] On this astonishing tale, it is no exaggeration to say, could hang in considerable part the future shape of our civilisation. Right at the heart of the sound and fury of "Climategate" â€" the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia â€" is one story of scientific chicanery, overlooked by the media, whose implications dwarf all the rest. If all those thousands of emails and other documents were leaked by an angry whistle-blower, as now seems likely, it was this story more than any other that he or she wanted the world to see. To appreciate its significance, as I observed last week, it is first necessary to understand that the people these incriminating documents relate to are not just any group of scientists. Professor Philip Jones of the CRU, his colleague Dr Keith [Fudge Factor] Briffa, the US computer modeler Dr Michael [under investigation] Mann, of "hockey stick" fame, and several more make up a tightly-knit group who have been right at the centre of the last two reports of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). On their account, as we shall see at this week's Copenhagen conference, the world faces by far the largest bill proposed by any group of politicians in history, amounting to many trillions of dollars. It is therefore vitally important that we should trust the methods by which these men have made their case. The supreme prize that they have been working for so long has been to establish that the world is warmer today than ever before in recorded history. To do this it has been necessary to eliminate a wealth of evidence that the world 1,000 years ago was, for entirely natural reasons, warmer than today (the so-called Medieval Warm Period). The most celebrated attempt to demonstrate this was the "hockey stick" graph produced by Dr Mann in 1999, which instantly became the chief icon of the IPCC and the global warming lobby all over the world. But in 2003 a Canadian statistician, Steve McIntyre, with his colleague Professor Ross McKitrick, showed how the graph had been fabricated by a computer model that produced "hockey stick" graphs whatever random data were fed into it. A wholly unrepresentative sample of tree rings from bristlecone pines in the western USA had been made to stand as "proxies" to show that there was no Medieval Warm Period, and that late 20th-century temperatures had soared to unprecedented levels. Although McIntyre's exposure of the "hockey stick" was upheld in 2006 by two expert panels commissioned by the US Congress, the small group of scientists at the top of the IPCC brushed this aside by pointing at a hugely influential series of graphs originating from the CRU, from Jones and Briffa. These appeared to confirm the rewriting of climate history in the "hockey stick", by using quite different tree ring data from Siberia. Briffa was put in charge of the key chapter of the IPCC's fourth report, in 2007, which dismissed all McIntyre's criticisms. At the forefront of those who found suspicious the graphs based on tree rings from the Yamal peninsula in Siberia was McIntyre himself, not least because for years the CRU refused to disclose the data used to construct them. This breached a basic rule of scientific procedure. But last summer the Royal Society insisted on the rule being obeyed, and two months ago Briffa accordingly published on his website some of the data McIntyre had been after. This was startling enough, as McIntyre demonstrated in an explosive series of posts on his Climate Audit blog, because it showed that the CRU studies were based on cherry-picking hundreds of Siberian samples only to leave those that showed the picture that was wanted. Other studies based on similar data had clearly shown the Medieval Warm Period as hotter than today. Indeed only the evidence from one tree, YADO61, seemed to show a "hockey stick" pattern, and it was this, in light of the extraordinary reverence given to the CRU's studies, which led McIntyre to dub it "the most influential tree in the world". But more dramatic still has been the new evidence from the CRU's leaked documents, showing just how the evidence was finally rigged. The most quoted remark in those emails has been one from Prof Jones in 1999, reporting that he had used "Mike [Mann]'s Nature trick of adding in the real temps" to "Keith's" graph, in order to "hide the decline". Invariably this has been quoted out of context. Its true significance, we can now see, is that what they intended to hide was the awkward fact that, apart from that one tree, the Yamal data showed temperatures not having risen in the late 20th century but declining. What Jones suggested, emulating Mann's procedure for the "hockey stick" (originally published in Nature), was that tree-ring data after 1960 should be eliminated, and substituted â€" without explanation â€" with a line based on the quite different data of measured global temperatures, to convey that temperatures after 1960 had shot up. A further devastating blow has now been dealt to the CRU graphs by an expert contributor to McIntyre's Climate Audit, known only as "Lucy Skywalker". She has cross-checked with the actual temperature records for that part of Siberia, showing that in the past 50 years temperatures have not risen at all. In other words, what has become arguably the most influential set of evidence used to support the case that the world faces unprecedented global warming, developed, copied and promoted hundreds of times, has now been as definitively kicked into touch as was Mann's "hockey stick" before it. Yet it is on a blind acceptance of this kind of evidence that 16,500 politicians, officials, scientists and environmental activists will be gathering in Copenhagen to discuss measures which, if adopted, would require us all in the West to cut back on our carbon dioxide emissions by anything up to 80 per cent, utterly transforming the world economy. Little of this extraordinary story been reported by the BBC or most of our mass-media, so possessed by groupthink that they are unable to see the mountain of evidence now staring them in the face. Not for nothing was Copenhagen the city in which Hans Andersen wrote his story about the Emperor whose people were brainwashed into believing that he was wearing a beautiful suit of clothes. But today there are a great many more than just one little boy ready to point out that this particular Emperor is wearing nothing at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Bill D Date: 26 Jan 10 - 02:40 PM I'm not a chemist/climatologist, Sawzaw. I think I have seen the explanations of why CO2 is not a 1-1 mapping against temp. rise, but can't remember. (CO2 seems to react in several different ways, and interacts with other causes.) I'll see what I can find, if someone doesn't post the answer faster.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: pdq Date: 26 Jan 10 - 02:39 PM "This NOAA chart that the snail found shows it more clearly. It shows about 0.7 degrees C of global warming in the last 115 years. Repeat as often as needed until people listen. 1 degree F or 0.7 degree C rise over 100 years is trivial. This is not Global Warming, it is Global Normalness, but that does not call for trillions of dollars to flow from those evil "develped countries" to "third world" countries fix the problem because there ain't no problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Bill D Date: 26 Jan 10 - 02:19 PM That's important, Wolfgang...'overselling basically sound data' can lead to embarrassment and awkwardness when trying to make a point. Still, if we see a problem and no one seems to be listening, certain types of 'overselling' are always tempting. It too many years to 'sell' the dangers of smoking because 1)the tobacco companies lied and UNDER reported the dangers, and 2) because those who were addicted didn't WANT to hear anything except solid proof. ("Why, I've smoked for 40 years, and I'm still here!")(My own mother smoked for 50 years). Global climate change just doesn't 'feel' like an emergency to most average people....like the frog in the kettle of water where the heat is increased g-r-a-d-u-a-l-l-y. And because there are a number of interlocking causes/factors in climate 'change', it easy to pick one or two and find counter examples to the claims. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 26 Jan 10 - 02:10 PM Bill: I am beginning to understand now. The purple line is the base line, like to 50 yard line. It is always flat. This NOAA chart that the snail found shows it more clearly. It shows about .7 degrees C. of global warming in the last 115 years. But CO2 has shot up. Why didn't the temperature follow? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Wolfgang Date: 26 Jan 10 - 01:59 PM Save the Panel on Climate Change! it seems obvious that the IPCC would need a new chairperson. The IPCC needs to adhere to its own standards for appointing experts and reviewing material that it reports. It needs to make its procedures for appointments more transparent. The IPCC peer-review should be made more robust, with quality assurance overriding deadlines. A formal mechanism should be put in place to correct errors after publication. Such reform will be a large and difficult task. But the credibility of climate science depends upon it. An opinion article. I don't know about two of the three authors, but the German von Storch is a researcher who is convinced that the temperatures are increasing in the long run, who is also convinced that by far most of this increase is man-made, but who thinks that the time window for what he thinks necessary action is much larger than those of his colleagues he considers to be alarmists. He thinks the IPCC is controlled by scientists who step out of their roles as advisers and become politicians themselves overselling basically sound data. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Bill D Date: 26 Jan 10 - 12:50 PM Thanks Snail, that's a better chart. I 'can' find 'em, but I have not taken the extra time. Yes, it is important to be sure you are charting the mean, the median, the average over the years: and for what months, what specific areas, daytime vs. nighttime, etc. With enough charts, it is easy to misconstrue the overall trend. Sawzaw...if I read correctly, there was one polar bear image that was used as an 'iconic image' to get attention, while the actual bears pictured were not specifically in danger. That's unfortunate, but it is a very common technique to get attention in many fields or campaigns. 'Proving' that a particular image was used does not invalidate the claim that a problem exists. The polar bears primary food source is seals. They catch seals by finding breathing holes in the ice and waiting. If the seal don't need specific places to come up for air, the bears have no easy way to locate them. Bears 'can' swim, but not as fast as seals. Now, it IS a fact that the sea-ice has been breaking up earlier and freezing later in recent years, limiting the bears hunting season and making feeding new cubs harder. Some bears have taken to more raids on hunters camps or villages out of hunger. Yes, the polar bear population did rise for a number of years after hunting was restricted, but that has changed. look here for experts' explanation |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: TheSnail Date: 26 Jan 10 - 11:12 AM It is a little unclear exactly what the NOAA chart is describing but it is one of a series. Try this one. It would appear that purple line is the mean of all the data so of course it is flat. It simply shows the centre that the temperature is varying around. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 25 Jan 10 - 11:48 PM Bill: I think I am getting your point. It says December at the top but why would all the averages of all the Decembers for 110 years in the lower 48 states show flat line with global warming? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 25 Jan 10 - 11:15 PM The Telegraph UK 23 Jan 2010: Pachauri: the real story behind the Glaciergate scandal ...What has now come to light, however, is that the scientist from whom this claim originated, Dr Syed Hasnain, has for the past two years been working as a senior employee of The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), the Delhi-based company of which Dr Pachauri is director-general. Furthermore, the claim â€" now disowned by Dr Pachauri as chairman of the IPCC â€" has helped TERI to win a substantial share of a $500,000 grant from one of America's leading charities, along with a share in a three million euro research study funded by the EU. At the same time, Dr Pachauri has personally been drawn into a major row with the Indian government, previously among his leading supporters, after he described as "voodoo science" an official report by the country's leading glaciologist, Dr Vijay Raina, which dismissed Dr Hasnain's claims as baseless. Now that the IPCC has disowned the prediction made by his employee, Dr Pachauri has been castigated by India's environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, and called on by Dr Raina to apologise for his "voodoo science" charge. At a stormy Delhi press conference on Thursday, Dr Pachauri was asked whether he intended to resign as chairman of the IPCC â€" on whose behalf he collected a Nobel Peace Prize two years ago, alongside Al Gore â€" but he refused to answer questions on this fast-escalating row. To understand why the future of Himalayan glaciers should arouse such peculiar passion, one must recall why they have long been a central icon in global warming campaigners' propaganda. Everything that polar bears have been to the West, the ice of the Himalayas has been â€" and more â€" to the East. This is because, as Mr Gore emphasised in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth, the vast Himalayan ice sheet feeds seven of the world's major river systems, thus helping to provide water to 40 per cent of the world's population. The IPCC's shock prediction in its 2007 report that the likelihood of the glaciers "disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high" thus had huge impact in India and other Asian countries, and it is precisely this statement that the IPCC has now been forced to disown. Since this first came to light, many journalists have tried to track down how such an embarrassing error came to be included in the IPCC report, which is still widely touted as the most authoritative single document on global warming. The only researcher who has dug out the full story, however, is my colleague Dr Richard North, who on successive days last week featured prominently on India's leading English-language TV news channel discussing the issue with the two scientists at the heart of the row, Dr Hasnain and Dr Raina. Until now it has been generally reported that the IPCC based its offending paragraph on an interview Dr Hasnain gave to the New Scientist in June 1999. This was a time when global warming researchers were busy making ever more extravagant claims in the run-up to the IPCC's 2001 report. It was in that year that Dr Michael Mann in America launched on the world his famous "hockey stick" graph, purporting to show that temperatures had risen faster in the late 20th century than ever before in the Earth's history. The graph was made the centrepiece of the IPCC's 2001 report, though it has since been comprehensively discredited. In fact Dr Hasnain had first made his own controversial claim two months earlier, in a much longer interview with an Indian environmental magazine, Down to Earth, in April 1999. It was the wording of this interview which the IPCC was to quote almost exactly in its 2007 report. Clearly the IPCC was aware that to cite a little Indian magazine as the reference for such a startling prediction would hardly seem sound scientific practice. But it discovered that Dr Hasnain's slightly later interview with New Scientist had been quoted in a 2005 report by the environmental campaigning group WWF. So it was this, rather oddly, which the IPCC cited as its authority â€" even though the words it quoted were taken directly from the earlier interview. But even before the 2007 report was published, it now emerges, the offending claim was challenged, not least by a leading Austrian glaciologist, Dr Georg Kaser, a lead author on the 2007 report. He described Dr Hasnain's prediction of glaciers disappearing by 2035 as "so wrong that it is not even worth dismissing". The year after the IPCC report was published, however, Dr Hasnain was recruited by Dr Pachauri to head a new glaciology unit at TERI. In a matter of months, TERI was given a share in a $500,000 dollar study of melting Himalayan glaciers funded by a US charity, the Carnegie Corporation. It is clear from Carnegie's database that a key part in winning this contract was played by Dr Hasnain's claim that most glaciers in the region "will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming". In May 2009 TERI was also given a share in a three million euro project funded by the EU. Citing the WWF's 2005 report, the EU set up its "High Noon" project to study the impact of melting Himalayan glaciers. It was particularly keen to foster alarm over the Himalayas as a means to win Indian support for action on climate change at last year's Copenhagen conference. Last November, however, Dr Raina, the country's most senior glaciologist, published a report for the Indian government showing that the rate of retreat of Himalayan glaciers had not increased in the past 50 years and that the IPCC's predictions were recklessly alarmist. This provoked the furious reaction from Dr Pachauri that tarred Dr Raina's report as "arrogant" and "voodoo science". Only weeks later came the devastating revelation that the IPCC's own prediction had no scientific foundation. Dr Pachauri's first response to these revelations was to claim that he had "absolutely no responsibility" for the blunder, that it was "the work of independent authors â€" they're responsible". But the IPCC's error was so blatant that last week Pachauri and other senior officials had to put out their remarkable statement, admitting that it had been due to a serious system failure. Even more damaging now, however, will be the revelation that the source of that offending prediction was the man whom Dr Pachauri himself has been employing for two years as the head of his glaciology unit at TERI â€" and that TERI has won a share in two major research contracts based on a scare over the melting of Himalayan glaciers prominently promoted by the IPCC, using words drawn directly from Dr Hasnain. This is by no means the first time that the procedures used by the IPCC to compile its 2007 report â€" the most alarmist so far â€" have been subjected to trenchant questioning. But no one, it seems, is more embarrassed by "Glaciergate" than Dr Pachauri himself, whose expanding worldwide business connections since he became chairman of the IPCC have recently been the subject of articles in these pages by Dr North and myself. In view of the IPCC's statement last week, the very evident anger of the Indian government at his dismissal of its expert's report and now the revelation of the part played in this fiasco by a senior member of his own TERI staff, it appears that what we may soon be looking at here is not just "Glaciergate" but "Pachaurigate". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 25 Jan 10 - 10:53 PM Bill: I did respond. I agreed with you. I said "So if you average Jan Feb and MAR and compare them to and average going back to 1963 you are right. The last three winters have been warmer than average." Still the NOAA chart shows no global warming for the lower 48 for 110 years, None, zero, nada, zip, zilch. 0. The purple long term mean line is flat. You can talk about Arizona, Pocatello and crime rates all you want but where is the global warming in that chart? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Bill D Date: 25 Jan 10 - 10:07 PM That chart, Sawzaw, is nothing but an average of the lower 48 for **one month**, and says nothing about overall global conditions, which is the concern. You want to claim next that the crime rate in July for Pocatello, Idaho can be used to dispute prolems in Arizona? Geez... I can read charts, and I can FIND charts. You never did answer my post about charts showing Maryland temps rising for the last century. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 25 Jan 10 - 10:05 PM The Telegraph: Dr Taylor was told that his views running "counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful". His signing of the Manhattan Declaration â€" a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents â€" was "inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG". Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined. Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming over the last 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 â€" as is dictated by the computer models of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues â€" but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea. He has also observed, however, how the melting of Arctic ice, supposedly threatening the survival of the bears, has rocketed to the top of the warmists' agenda as their most iconic single cause. The famous photograph of two bears standing forlornly on a melting iceberg was produced thousands of times by Al Gore, the WWF and others as an emblem of how the bears faced extinction â€" until last year the photographer, Amanda Byrd, revealed that the bears, just off the Alaska coast, were in no danger. Her picture had nothing to do with global warming and was only taken because the wind-sculpted ice they were standing on made such a striking image. Dr Taylor had obtained funding to attend this week's meeting of the PBSG, but this was voted down by its members because of his views on global warming. The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor's, frankly explained in an email (which I was not sent by Dr Taylor) that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: "it was the position you've taken on global warming that brought opposition". Dr Taylor was told that his views running "counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful". His signing of the Manhattan Declaration â€" a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents â€" was "inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG". So, as the great Copenhagen bandwagon rolls on, stand by this week for reports along the lines of "scientists say polar bears are threatened with extinction by vanishing Arctic ice". But also check out Anthony Watt's Watts Up With That website for the latest news of what is actually happening in the Arctic. The average temperature at midsummer is still below zero, the latest date that this has happened in 50 years of record-keeping. After last year's recovery from its September 2007 low, this year's ice melt is likely to be substantially less than for some time. The bears are doing fine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ed T Date: 25 Jan 10 - 09:56 PM Anyone got theories on why there are no wild cows? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 25 Jan 10 - 09:56 PM Where is the warmists' response to This NOAA chart? No global warming shown here for the last 110 years even with the CO2 climbing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ed T Date: 25 Jan 10 - 09:50 PM First it was the glaciers....then it was the banks and markets, now its Cadbury. Today, it's V K Raina. Enough with the melting, I say! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ed T Date: 25 Jan 10 - 09:46 PM Did Sir Edmund Hillary mention melting or non melting Himalayan glaciers in the accounts of his mountain exploits....I think not. Thus, my case is proven:) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 25 Jan 10 - 09:40 PM According to TIA "The errors were first pointed out by a leading glaciologist who supports the overall IPCC picture" Nope. There was no significant questioning of this claim until late last year, when the Indian government published a discussion paper that pointed out that there was in fact no sign of any "abnormal" retreat in the Himalayan glaciers. India's environment minister Jairam Ramesh accused the IPCC of being "alarmist." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 25 Jan 10 - 09:34 PM Glaciologist demands apology from Pachauri for 'voodoo' remark The Times of India 19 January 2010, NEW DELHI: India's senior-most glaciologist V K Raina today said the chief of the UN climate body should apologise to the scientist fraternity for dubbing their work on melting of Himalayan glaciers as "voodoo science". Raina's demand comes even as the UN body, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC) headed by R K Pachauri, deliberates on retracting its statement on Himalayan glaciers melting. "The IPCC had dumped our report that the glaciers have not retreated abnormally. Now, with the truth out in open, the IPCC should dump its own report which was based on mere speculation," Raina told PTI. He was reacting to the revelations that the UN panel's predictions that the Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035 stemmed from a 1999 article in a scientific journal which relied on an estimate made by a glaciologist Syed Iqbal Hasnain and not based on a peer review. IPCC must be answerable to all the scientists and experts associated who stand vindicated that glaciers melting is not being happening at the abnormal pace as declared by it, Raina noted. "It only shows that IPCC has based its arguments on speculations and did not verify it before making it public," the former deputy director general of the Geological Survey of India said. Raina, in his report, had maintained that glaciers have "not shown any remarkable retreat in the last 50 years and the reports of the glaciers demise are a bit premature." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ed T Date: 25 Jan 10 - 06:08 PM Oops, more(inconvienent) ice can be found in this account of Amudsopn's three year voyage....that set a record, but was through such shallow waters that it was deemed to be of no commercial value as a route. http://libweb5.princeton.edu/visual_materials/maps/websites/northwest-passage/amundsen.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ed T Date: 25 Jan 10 - 06:03 PM [Amundsen, Vol. 2, pp. 138, 139, 143, 145.] About an hour later our look-out reported from the crow's nest that a boat was approaching us from land. At first we thought it was an Eskimo boat, but soon discovered it was manned by two white men and one Eskimo. We took them on board, and, curiously enough, the first of the men addressed us in Norwegian. He was a Norwegian, named Christian Sten, who had been second mate on board the schooner "Bonanza," of San Francisco. The schooner left home simultaneously with us, and, like ourselves, had passed the winter in these regions. The vessel had, however, been damaged by ice and by standing, and a few days ago they were compelled to run her ashore at King Point to save her from sinking. . . . We arrived at noon, and found the state of the ice as described by Sten. We approached a large sheet of solid ice lying outside the wreck, and made fast to it. Little did we dream then that King Point was to be our residence for the next ten months. . . . We were not the only ones waiting for a change in the condition of the ice. A large number of Eskimo, who had left Herschel Island in boats for the Mackenzie River, were held up by the ice about four miles west of us. . . . New ice, several inches thick, was now forming every night, and our fate was soon sealed for another winter. On Saturday, September 9th, we were able to walk on the ice, and we must therefore regard this as the opening chapter of our third winter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ed T Date: 25 Jan 10 - 05:44 PM Amudson saw no ice? What a hoot. That's why it took his journey three years to complete - he and his crew had to wait while the frozen sea around them thawed enough to allow for navigation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Bill D Date: 25 Jan 10 - 05:38 PM Thank you, pdq.... and from that site, this link telling some more details. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: pdq Date: 25 Jan 10 - 03:39 PM Here are some maps of the... Northwest Passage |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Bill D Date: 25 Jan 10 - 03:23 PM Ringer: You might DO the research before stating factual absurdities about well-documented history. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Bill D Date: 25 Jan 10 - 03:07 PM "Roald Amundsen sailed the Northwest Passage in 1903 and saw no ice..." Nonsense! He spent 3 years getting thru the passage. " After a third winter trapped in the ice, Amundsen was able to navigate a passage into the Beaufort Sea after which he cleared into the Bering Strait, thus having successfully navigated the Northwest Passage." " Until 2009, the Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year, but climate change has reduced the pack ice, and this Arctic shrinkage made the waterways more navigable" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 25 Jan 10 - 02:57 PM NASA's Prophet Will Give You NightmaresIgnore James Hansen's climate predictions at your peril. By Johann HariPosted Sunday, Jan. 24, 2010, at 6:33 AM ET I started reading James Hansen's new book, Storms of My Grandchildren, at the edge of a vanishing Arctic. I sat on a bare brown Greenland hillside listening to the ferocious crack and crash of the dying glaciers in the distance. As I watched the corpse of the ice sheet float by, broken into a thousand icebergs, it seemed the right place to begin the leading NASA scientist's explanation for what I was seeing. Since the year I was born, 1979, 40 percent of the Arctic sea ice has vanished. If we don't change our behavior fast, Hansen says I will live to see the day when it is all gone, and the North Pole is a point in the open ocean, reachable by boat. He stresses these are only the starting symptoms of a planetary fever that will remake the map of the world—and the capacity of human beings to survive on it. I finished reading the book at the Copenhagen climate summit, where the world's leaders gathered to offer a giant shrug. Professor Hansen has been driven into a strange situation, and produced a strange book. For one-third of a century now, this cantankerous scientist has been more accurate in his predictions about global warming than anyone else alive. He saw these disastrous changes coming long before others did, and the U.S. government has tried to censor or sack him for his prescience. Now he has written a whistle-blower's account while still at the top: a story of how our political system is so wilfully, deliberately blind to environmental realities that we have no choice now but for American citizens to take direct physical action against the polluters. It's hardly what you expect to hear from the upper echelons of NASA: not a call to the stars, but a call to the streets. Toss a thousand scientific papers into a blender along with All the President's Men and Mahatma Gandhi, and you've got this riveting, disorienting book. How did such an implausible American story come to pass? Hansen was born into a dirt-poor family in Iowa, to a farmer who left school in the eighth grade. But he was whip-smart and rose through university science departments, where he spent a decade studying the atmosphere of Venus. But then he noticed a more interesting story was happening right in front of him: "The composition of the atmosphere of our home planet was changing before our eyes, and it was changing more and more rapidly." Yes, we had known for more than a century that human beings were releasing warming gases into the atmosphere. Every time we burn a lump of coal or a barrel of oil, we unleash in one sudden burst greenhouse gases that took millennia to accumulate. But Hansen believed the effects were now becoming plain—and could be dangerous. Watch BetterYou Weight Loss Videos from HealthiNation Quantcast After studying the evidence, in 1981 he made a number of predictions for what a warmer world would look like by the early 21st century. He said that the Arctic ice would be retreating dramatically and the fabled "North-West Passage" would open up, making it possible to sail through the Arctic. It has happened. I have seen it. Yet he was derided at the time as "alarmist" by the political class, and the Reagan Energy Department responded by slashing his research budget. This set the pattern for his career: Hansen makes scientific warnings that are correct and need to be known by the public, and he is punished for it. In 1988, he famously testified before a Senate committee, offering the first major statements to capture the public imagination on the climate crisis. His written testimony was immediately altered by the White House to make his conclusions appear uncertain, and the first President Bush's chief of staff, John Sununu, tried to get him fired. There was no improvement under Bill Clinton. Hansen received "the most political interference" then, when the administration tried to block an entire scientific paper. Then, notoriously, the second Bush administration started to appoint former employees of Big Coal to run NASA's communications. They blocked press releases warning about global warming and tried to stop Hansen from giving interviews. One of the appointees explained his job was to "make the President look good." When Hansen argued back, they cut his research budget by 20 percent. Hansen said he had a duty to speak out because the first line of NASA's mission statement is a pledge "to understand and protect our home planet"—so the Bush appointees deleted the commitment. Yes: They erased the commitment to protect planet Earth. (An independent investigation by the Inspector General later confirmed all this.) Most scientists would have backed down or given up. Hansen didn't—and from his prickly prose, you can tell why. He is irritable and aggressive, in part because he knows the stakes are so high. Unlike many scientists, he is not afraid to talk the language of morality. He knows it would be immoral—deeply immoral—to discover that we are trashing our climate, and stay in the lab, mumbling to yourself. This genius from an Iowa farm ain't going to be bossed around by any oil-stained prep-boys who want to bury his hard facts. The global-warming deniers have claimed for years that the overwhelming scientific consensus on this issue exists only because climate scientists are rewarded for making "alarmist" or "hysterical" claims. Hansen's story shows this is the opposite of the truth. The pressure is, in reality, to make scientists play down their claims. Think of it as the real Climategate. What are the politicians trying to hide when they try to silence Hansen? He explains—drawing on deep pools of scientific evidence—that the burning of oil and coal is emitting so many warming gases into the atmosphere that we are now very close to triggering a series of catastrophes we won't be able to stop. The most striking to me, as I looked out over one of the world's greatest ice sheets, is the danger of their disintegration—triggering a massive sea level rise. It used to be agreed that it would take millennia for ice sheets to go, but the evidence now shows this is wrong. ... Full story here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: DougR Date: 25 Jan 10 - 02:26 PM Al Gore's FRONT yard? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: mousethief Date: 25 Jan 10 - 02:14 PM Inconvenient science is no science at all, to a teabagger. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ebbie Date: 25 Jan 10 - 01:24 PM Ye gods. Another one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ringer Date: 25 Jan 10 - 12:59 PM Re the Northwest Passage: Roald Amundsen sailed the Northwest Passage in 1903 and saw no ice. Therefore the ice would have been the same area as today's, or less. The current melting is due to a slight change in warm ocean currents, not climate change. Why does no one pay attention to the Antarctic, where ice is at a 30-year maximum? Oh, of course, because it doesn't fit with the global-warming zeitgeist, does it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 25 Jan 10 - 09:57 AM January 24, 2010 The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a Nobel Prize winning scientific body tasked with assessing the risk of climate change caused by human activity, has come under fire in re... The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a Nobel Prize winning scientific body tasked with assessing the risk of climate change caused by human activity, has come under fire in recent days for an error in its 2007 report. The panel, which is considered the world's most reliable source of information on climate change, had falsely predicted that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. Rajendra Pachauri, the head of IPCC, has now admitted to a mistake being in arriving at the 2035 prediction, but also defended the fact that the melting is a serious concern. He has accused US lobbying groups for being behind the exaggerated criticism. < a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBrf2kTMrmw">From New Delhi, Al Jazeera's Prerna Suri reports on the controversy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ed T Date: 22 Jan 10 - 05:44 PM Ice in the Arctic....from international ice scientists....http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121164011.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ebbie Date: 22 Jan 10 - 05:26 PM catsheesh That article, if you should deign to read it is NOT about polar bears, et al. It illustrates in a clear way that the waters have warmed enough in the Arctic to lay cable through the Northwest Passage, something that has not been true in recorded history. What is your problem? If you are still alive you will be as affected as anyone else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: pdq Date: 22 Jan 10 - 01:39 PM Over the last several years, I have posted many articleas about our success in saving the Polar Bear, Whooping Crane and Bald Eagle. With the Endangered Species Act of 1972, Richrd Nixon focused public attention on the plight of these (and other) species and made it a national priority to save them. There were just a few thousand Polar Bear in the mid 1950s. Now there are 25000 and the population growth continues. Their numbers have exceeded the habitat carrying capacity in some places. Taking pictures of "poor lonely polar bear floating away on ice fragment" may work for grade school propaganda, but it does not work on people in the science community. Just the facts m'am. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ebbie Date: 22 Jan 10 - 12:48 PM Nah. It ain't happenin' "ANCHORAGE - Global warming has melted so much Arctic ice that a telecommunication group is moving forward with a project that was unthinkable just a few years ago: laying underwater fiber optic cable between Tokyo and London by way of the Northwest Passage. The proposed system would nearly cut in half the time it takes to send messages from the United Kingdom to Asia, said Walt Ebell, CEO of Kodiak-Kenai Cable Co. The route is the shortest underwater path between Tokyo and London. The quicker transmission time is important in the financial world where milliseconds can count in executing profitable trades and transactions. "Speed is the crux," Ebell said. "You're cutting the delay from 140 milliseconds to 88 milliseconds." "The project, while still facing many significant obstacles, also serves as an example of how warming has altered the Arctic landscape in profound ways. "The loss of summer sea ice prompted the U.S. to list polar bears as a threatened species in May 2008. Walrus in two of the last three years gathered by the thousands on Alaska's northwest shore rather than ride pack ice to unproductive waters beyond the outer continental shelf. "Summer sea ice melted to its lowest recorded level ever in late 2007, and most climate modelers predict a continued downward spiral. The result is a path through the Northwest Passage, the Arctic route connecting the Atlantic and Pacific that has fascinated explorers for centuries." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: pdq Date: 22 Jan 10 - 12:29 PM "Critics seized on the messages as evidence that, in their view, climate scientists were manipulating data and colluding to keep contrary opinion out of scientific journals. But climate scientists and political leaders affirmed what they called a broad-based consensus that the planet was growing warmer, and on a consistent basis, although with measurable year-to-year variations. The NASA data released Thursday showed an upward temperature trend of about 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit (0.2 degrees Celsius) per decade over the past 30 years. Average global temperatures have risen by about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) since 1880. "That's the important number to keep in mind," said Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at Goddard. "The difference between the second and sixth warmest years is trivial because the known uncertainty in the temperature measurement is larger than some of the differences between the warmest years."" Yes, the Earth's lower atmosphere is warming slightly, but it can hardly be called Global Warming while one keep a straight face. The change in the last 150 years is unusually small. Look at the change in the previous 450 years. The slight rise is overall benificial to plant and animal health and abundance. Select members of NASA say that there is a 0.36o F rise in the last 30 years, but Department of Defense data shows no such thing. A more correct conversion of 0.8o C change (since 1880) is 1.26o F, not 1.5o F. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ed T Date: 22 Jan 10 - 11:06 AM http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/politicalcartoons/ig/Political-Cartoons/Climate-Change-Deniers.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 22 Jan 10 - 10:20 AM "WASHINGTON — The decade ending in 2009 was the warmest on record, new surface temperature figures released Thursday by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration show. The agency also found that 2009 was the second warmest year since 1880, when modern temperature measurement began. The warmest year was 2005. The other hottest recorded years have all occurred since 1998, NASA said. James E. Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said that global temperatures varied because of changes in ocean heating and cooling cycles. "When we average temperature over 5 or 10 years to minimize that variability," said Dr. Hansen, one of the world's leading climatologists, "we find global warming is continuing unabated." A separate preliminary analysis from another NASA office, the National Climatic Data Center, found that 2009 tied with 2006 as the fifth warmest year on record, based on measurements taken on land and at sea. The data center report, published earlier this week, also cited the years 2000 to 2009 as the warmest decade ever measured. The new temperature figures provide evidence in the scientific discussion of global warming but are not likely to be the last word on whether the planet's temperature is on a consistent upward path. Dr. Hansen, who has been an outspoken figure in the climate debate for years, has often been attacked by skeptics of global warming for what they charge is selective use of temperature data. The question of whether the planet is heating and how quickly was at the heart of the so-called "climategate" controversy that arose last fall when hundreds of e-mail messages from the climate study unit at the University of East Anglia in England were released without authorization. Critics seized on the messages as evidence that, in their view, climate scientists were manipulating data and colluding to keep contrary opinion out of scientific journals. But climate scientists and political leaders affirmed what they called a broad-based consensus that the planet was growing warmer, and on a consistent basis, although with measurable year-to-year variations. The NASA data released Thursday showed an upward temperature trend of about 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit (0.2 degrees Celsius) per decade over the past 30 years. Average global temperatures have risen by about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) since 1880. "That's the important number to keep in mind," said Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at Goddard. "The difference between the second and sixth warmest years is trivial because the known uncertainty in the temperature measurement is larger than some of the differences between the warmest years."" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,TIA Date: 21 Jan 10 - 12:59 PM BillD - "refresh in ten years" Yup. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 21 Jan 10 - 12:55 PM Guardian Nov 9: Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, told the Guardian: "We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don't know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement." "My concern is that this comes from western scientists … it is high time India makes an investment in understanding what is happening in the Himalayan ecosystem," he added. The government report, entitled Himalayan glaciers (pdf), looks at 150 years' worth of data gathered from the Geological Survey of India from 25 glaciers. It claims to be the first comprehensive study on the region. Vijay Kumar Raina, the geologist who authored the report, admitted that some "Himalayan glaciers are retreating. But it is nothing out of the ordinary. Nothing to suggest as some have said that they will disappear." Pachauri dismissed the report saying it was not "peer reviewed" and had few "scientific citations". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 21 Jan 10 - 11:50 AM "No attempt to whitewash or cover up": The railroad engineer in charge first tried to claim it was voodoo science and arrogance by climate change deniers. How dare anyone to question this settled, undeniable, peer reviewed science. There was no significant questioning of this claim until late last year, when the Indian government published a discussion paper that pointed out that there was in fact no sign of any "abnormal" retreat in the Himalayan glaciers. India's environment minister Jairam Ramesh accused the IPCC of being "alarmist." Doing what he has traditionally done in such circumstances, Mr. Pachauri proceeded to smear the messengers and pontificate about the IPCC’s high "peer-reviewed" scientific standards. He denounced the research paper as "voodoo science." He accused Minister Ramesh of "arrogance." He said that such skeptical claims were reminiscent of "climate change deniers." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Mr Happy Date: 21 Jan 10 - 11:05 AM .........they've had a spokesperson on telly this am saying the glaciers defrosting by the year 2035 is in fact a typo which has been promulgated all over. The year at issue should've read 2350! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,TIA Date: 21 Jan 10 - 10:30 AM NB The errors were first pointed out by a leading glaciologist who supports the overall IPCC picture. No attempt to whitewash or cover up. Real science is self-correcting. |
