BS: Where's the Global Warming

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 05:15 PM

BillD,

"So, you're saying that if firemen are getting burned fighting fire, they need to seek better salves & bandages, rather than worry about installing sprinkler systems and encouraging noncombustible building materials? (I 'think' I have the format correct...☺)"

No, another logically flawed case. YOU are ignoring that what Gore is advocating is more like conting how many feet of hose are used rather than truning on the water. I would rather they put out the fire.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 04:47 PM

See the reference link I posted a while back, Ken. Or go see "An Inconvenient Truth". It is in both places. Sheesh.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,ken mellor
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 04:43 PM

I want to see the IPPC "hockey shaped graph" showing (allegedly)
Global temperatue and CO2 plotted against time.
I want to see it wit "error bars"
That graph is the mainstay of the man - made global warming theory.
We never see the graph !!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 04:27 PM

"

A new scientific study published today in Nature could serve to simplify the debate surrounding carbon targets, by warning that the world can only afford to burn another half a trillion tonnes of carbon if it is to prevent potentially catastrophic increases in average temperatures of more than 2°C.

The research calculated that the world has already burned about half a trillion tonnes of carbon since the industrial revolution, and that based on current projections it is on track to burn the next half a trillion tonnes within 40 years.

It warns that once a trillion tonnes of anthropogenic carbon has been burned, resulting in 3.67 trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide being released, global warming of between 1.6°C and 2.6°C is likely, with a rise of 2°C "most likely".

The EU has set a target of limiting average temperature rises to 2°C as scientists fear that larger increases in temperature could trigger the collapse of natural carbon sinks that would lead to still higher levels of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere and result in "runaway climate change".

The new research suggests that a target based on how much carbon can still be burned would be simpler to understand and enforce than targets based on the rate of emissions or concentrations in the atmosphere, which have been adopted by many businesses and governments.

Writing in Nature, the research team, which was led by Oxford University's Myles Allen, said that "policy targets based on limiting cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide are likely to be more robust to scientific uncertainty than emission-rate or concentration targets".

The research implies that access to fossil fuels will eventually have to be blocked, warning that only a third of economically recoverable oil, gas and coal reserves can be burned before 2100 if two-degree warming is to be avoided.

The scientists said that while the research framed carbon targets in a different way to those being discussed as part of the UN's climate change talks, they were broadly in line with current expectations that global greenhouse gas emissions need to peak in about 2020."
(From here.

A

Bruce:

I am not finding instances of Gore pushing for adaptation measures, in a rapid search. Although he has pushed the cap and trade model, it is not the only remedial measure he has promoted. But I fail to see why you feel he is at fault for doing what he is doing, because there is something else that also needs doing. If he focuses on remedial measures, why don't you start an adaptation measures campaign instead of just being sarcastic about him doing what he does?


A


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 04:27 PM

Lemme see if I can get this in a form Bruce understands..

So, you're saying that if firemen are getting burned fighting fire, they need to seek better salves & bandages, rather than worry about installing sprinkler systems and encouraging noncombustible building materials? (I 'think' I have the format correct...☺)





Yes...of course it's a silly example......that's the point.

   But a serious question is: Why is **Gore** supposed to focus on stuff like 'moving populations' rather than trying to prevent the need to do so? Don't we have official agencies to deal with logistics IF the need arises?
It 'feels' to me like you are trying to divert attention from the issue of whether we have a significant trend in warming, by ridiculing Gore's logic about response.

I just don't get it....as I said before, populations WILL try to move if this continues, and Gore is not the one to try to oversee that process.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 03:50 PM

"But he is not limiting his suggestions as you imply"

Fine. Show me a statement where he says to actully attempt to deal with climate change, instead of trying to prevent it.



I'll wait.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 03:13 PM

Gore is beating the drum for action to be taken, Bruce, and among those actions, cutting back on human-driven CO2 emissions. But he is not limiting his suggestions as you imply, nor is he in a position to legislate one or another strategy. So I think you are mischaracterizing the man, perhaps out of bitterness. To the degree that anthrogenic factors are contributing to the climate curve, they should be considered a human risk factor and managed as possible, surely; and surely calling this to public attention is a public service.

Why not write your own gospel and put it out in PowerPoint, if you are so much the wiser than he?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 02:15 PM

Solar could be made cost effective if there wasn't the opposition to carbon industries.
There is an analogy to the car makers. A decent car could be produced but the so-called
"market" values and the car industry militate against this.

Any excessive imbalance in the earth's atmosphere can have deleterious effects.
That's just common sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 02:13 PM

"All we can do is adopt various measures to better cope with the effects of climate change."


Exactly! And this is what Gore et al are NOT doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 09:40 AM

Earth temperature and Solar activity have always been in lock-step. Until 1975. Now they are out of step, and increasingly so. A strong argument for anthropogenic climate change *not* driven by the sun. I put the link above, but I suspect that many in the discussion did not read it. I will repost later.

And yes, methane is a more effective greenhouse gas than C02, but the CO2 is where we have leverage. If we slightly increase CO2, and it slightly increases warming at the poles which releases methane which causes huge warming, it seems very smart to attack the trigger over which we have control - CO2. It's not the whole story, but it is *something* we can do.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 09:32 AM

"Volcanic activity can also put a lot of C02 and various pollutants into the atmosphere..." ~ LH

I'm not being confrontational on this point. I just want people to realize that CO₂ is not correctly called a pollutant.

CO₂ is an essential component of the Earth's atmosphere and all plant life would cease to exist without it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 02:27 AM

If it were variations in the sun's behaviour that caused a whole lot of global warming during the PETM....how would we find physical evidence of that now?

Furthermore, could it be possible that an increase in solar energy during the PETM would have itself caused an increase in atmospheric C02? Quite possbily, I should think, because if the sun heats the surface of the Earth more than usual then you will have a greater incidence of drought over wide areas of geography, and that will cause a greater incidence of forest fires and brush fires to occur. More forest fires and brush fires means a lot more smoke and C02 going into the atmosphere. (Volcanic activity can also put a lot of C02 and various pollutants into the atmosphere...but that can cause global cooling for awhile by blocking sunlight.)

It's quite possible that the changing activity of the sun has been the major player in Earth's past heating and cooling phases...not greenhouse gases. An increase of decreans in greenhouse gases may itself be partially a biproduct of changing solar behaviour.

If so, well, we can't do anything about the sun. All we can do is adopt various measures to better cope with the effects of climate change.

There will always be climate change in one direction or another. What humanity needs to do is get better at anticipating a major climate change before it happens and taking measure to protect people from the worst effects of it. Preventive medicine, in other words.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 11:24 PM

No one knows exactly how much Earth's climate will warm due to carbon emissions, but a new study this week suggests scientists' best predictions about global warming might be incorrect.

The study, which appears in Nature Geoscience, found that climate models explain only about half of the heating that occurred during a well-documented period of rapid global warming in Earth's ancient past. The study, which was published online today, contains an analysis of published records from a period of rapid climatic warming about 55 million years ago known as the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum, or PETM.
"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."

During the PETM, for reasons that are still unknown, the amount of carbon in Earth's atmosphere rose rapidly. For this reason, the PETM, which has been identified in hundreds of sediment core samples worldwide, is probably the best ancient climate analogue for present-day Earth.

In addition to rapidly rising levels of atmospheric carbon, global surface temperatures rose dramatically during the PETM. Average temperatures worldwide rose by about 7 degrees Celsius -- about 13 degrees Fahrenheit -- in the relatively short geological span of about 10,000 years.

Many of the findings come from studies of core samples drilled from the deep seafloor over the past two decades. When oceanographers study these samples, they can see changes in the carbon cycle during the PETM.

"You go along a core and everything's the same, the same, the same, and then suddenly you pass this time line and the carbon chemistry is completely different," Dickens said.
"This has been documented time and again at sites all over the world."

Based on findings related to oceanic acidity levels during the PETM and on calculations about the cycling of carbon among the oceans, air, plants and soil, Dickens and co-authors Richard Zeebe of the University of Hawaii and James Zachos of the University of California-Santa Cruz determined that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased by about 70 percent during the PETM.

That's significant because it does not represent a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Since the start of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels are believed to have risen by about one-third, largely due to the burning of fossil fuels. If present rates of fossil-fuel consumption continue, the doubling of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels will occur sometime within the next century or two.

Doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is an oft-talked-about threshold, and today's climate models include accepted values for the climate's sensitivity to doubling. Using these accepted values and the PETM carbon data, the researchers found that the models could only explain about half of the warming that Earth experienced 55 million years ago.

The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM. "Some feedback loop or other processes that aren't accounted for in these models -- the same ones used by the IPCC for current best estimates of 21st Century warming -- caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM." (Phys.org)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 11:15 PM

Oil Change International - Follow the Oil Money -

Google that, svp.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 11:10 PM

"WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 3–A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science."

from

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:HPTfR6bjQD4J:www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html+oil+co

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 11:02 PM

Your excerpt from the WaPo was almost persuasive and I was going to acknowledge that when I took the trouble to go to the link you provided for the actual piece and found your excerpt had roundly altered the whole throust of the article. The whole point of the piece is that cap and trade to limit carbon emissions is not the best way to reduce greenhouse effects. I have no disagreement with that view--if solar were more costeffective than petroleum, we'd be miles ahead.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 10:38 PM

From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:23 AM

"This message was recently backed up by the findings of the Copenhagen Consensus project, which gathered eight of the world's top economists -- including five Nobel laureates -- to examine research on the best ways to tackle 10 global challenges: air pollution, conflict, disease, global warming, hunger and malnutrition, lack of education, gender inequity, lack of water and sanitation, terrorism, and trade barriers.

These experts looked at the costs and benefits of different responses to each challenge. Their goal was to create a prioritized list showing how money could best be spent combating these problems.

The panel concluded that the least effective use of resources in slowing global warming would come from simply cutting carbon dioxide emissions. "

read the whole article- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/25/AR2008062501946.html

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 10:33 PM

From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 May 08 - 09:29 PM

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2010336/posts


""I don't make climate predictions because I don't know what the Sun will do next," says S. Fred Singer, University of Virginia emeritus professor of environmental sciences and founding director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. "But analysis of the best data of the past 30 years has convinced me that the human contribution has been insignificant — in spite of the real rise in atmospheric CO2, a greenhouse gas."

These researchers are not alone. They are among a rising tide of scientists who question the so-called "global warming" theory. Some further argue that global cooling merits urgent concern.

"In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is 'settled,' significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming," 100 prestigious geologists, physicists, meteorologists, and other scientists wrote U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon last December. They also noted that "today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998."

In a December 2007 Senate Environment and Public Works Committee minority-staff report, more than 400 scientists — from such respected institutions as Princeton, the National Academy of Sciences, the University of London, and Paris's Pasteur Institute — declared their independence from the global-warming "conventional wisdom."

"Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas," asserted climatologist Luc Debontridder of Belgium's Royal Meteorological Institute. "It is responsible for at least 75 percent of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it."

"The hypothesis that solar variability, and not human activity, is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not," explained Dr. David Wojick, co-founder of Carnegie-Mellon University's Department of Engineering and Public Policy. "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 10:30 PM

From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 01:49 PM

"If changes in the Sun's activities are part of it, there's not a lot we can do about that right now. "

We SHOULD be relocating coastal populations, and preparing for the change in climate: Instead, we bitch and moan about how everything would be just fine if ( insert hated country) would just comply with the Kyoto accords.

And NOTHING is being done to DEAL with the effects that WILL be coming along, regardless of what we "can" do about CO2 emmissions.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 10:30 PM

I understand the difference, Bruce. Your perspective that all the warming is just hidden in longterm trends which we have no effect on is possible but unlikely, IMO. And a good number of reputable scientists disagree with your analysis which you present as an absolute assertion.

I have no time for exchanging brassy, windy assertions.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 10:16 PM

Sorry, Amos, not slurs- but fact. You have failed to consider that in natural warming, the methane frozen in artic regions would be released, having a far greater effect than CO2. Remember, water vapor and methane are far stronger greenhouse gasses than CO2. Once the ice caps melt, the water vapor that they release, along withg the methane, are more than enough to provide for the greenhouse effect as seen in past climactic changes.

The next ice age will not occur until either the sun ( a variable star, by about 4%) cools down, or the planet is hit by a large enough object to raise dust for several years. Or maybe another Krakatoa type event ( or several.

The only way that mankind is going to alter this climactic change is to have a major thermonuclear war, and let the dust clouds cool things down- refreezing tyhe ice caps, which then reflect more sunlight and capture the methane, etc.

So, to follow in Gore's parade, if you would rather stop the climate change than adjust to it, start a war. a BIG one.


I would rather move a few million people, like out of Florida. But that won't get Gore any votes for Saviour, now will it???




This is a natural cycle, seen to have happpened many times. It just happens that civilisation has occurred mostly during the post glacial period of the present ice age- which is now ending.

Look back at the old thread, where I presented graphs showing the temperature and CO2 for the last several million years- you criticise Doug for not being aware of the duifference between climate and weather, then make the same mistake yourself- it is the long term ( think centuries) trending that is significant- they show a warming, and the cause is NOT man-made CO2.


"private agenda of profit "

I see only that Gore would be unknown and ignored if he did not have this fairy tale to peddle.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 10:08 PM

Sorry, Amos, not slurs- but fact. You have failed to consider that in natural warming, the methane frozen in artic regions would be released, having a far greater effect than CO2. Remember, water vapor and methane are far stronger greenhouse gasses than CO2.

This is a natural cycle, seen to have happpened many times. It just happens that civilisation has occurred mostly during the post glacial period of the present ice age- which is now ending.

Look back at the old thread, where I presented graphs showing the temperature and CO2 for the last several million years- you criticise Doug for not being aware of the duifference between climate and weather, then make the same mistake yourself- it is the long term ( think centuries) trending that is significant- they show a warming, and the cause is NOT man-made CO2.


"private agenda of profit "

I see only that Gore would be unknown and ignored if he did not have this fairy tale to peddle.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 09:16 PM

Well, it was only a few posts upthread, BB, that all warming was being roundly denied.

There are two arguments that support the greenhouse causation theory. One is the difference in the increase between day and night, which shows more pronounced warming at night because radiation is escaping less due to greenhouse gases.

A second is the difference in rate of the Arctic declines.

"...computer models predicted that greenhouse gases would cause a particular pattern of temperature change. It was different from what might be caused by other external influences, such as solar variations. The observed geographical pattern of change did in fact bear a rough resemblance to the computers' greenhouse effect maps. "It is likely that this trend is partially due to human activities," the researchers concluded, "although many uncertainties remain."(43) Even before it was published, the finding impressed the community of climate scientists. In an important 1995 report, the world's leading experts offered the "fingerprint" as evidence that greenhouse warming was probably underway. The leader of the team at Lawrence Livermore Lab that found the "fingerprint," Benjamin Santer, helped write the summary of this report, and he was deeply hurt when a few skeptics attacked not only the statement but his personal scientific integrity. (By 2006, when the warming had progressed considerably farther and the computer models were much improved, his judgment was confirmed. A thorough analysis concluded that there was scarcely a 5% chance that anything but humans had brought the changes observed in many regions of the world.)(43a)"

Further:

Data from various locations in Alaska, published in 1986, showed that the top 100 meters of permafrost was anomalously warm compared with deeper layers. The only possible cause was a rise of average Arctic air temperature by a few degrees since the last century, with the heat gradually seeping down into the earth.(45) In a burst of enthusiasm during the 1990s, scientists took the temperature of hundreds of deep boreholes in rock layers around the planet. The averages gave a clear signal of a global warming over the last few centuries, accelerating in the 20th century. A still more important example of the far-flung efforts was a series of heroic expeditions that labored high into the thin air of the Andes and even Tibet, hauling drill rigs onto tropical ice caps. The hard-won data showed again that the warming in the last few decades exceeded anything seen for thousands of years before. The ice caps themselves, which had endured since the last ice age, were melting away faster than the scientists could measure them.(46)

FInallly, Gore is basing his information not on some private agenda of profit but on the reports from the Inter-Governmental Panal on Climate Change. You can look over the same historical and physical analysis data he is using here, for example.

You ad hominem slurs do not contribute to the discussion or clarify anything at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 09:01 PM

Amos,

there is warming- just as has occurred many times in the past, without mankind causing it ( and without mankind being able to stop it.

You keep supporting Gore's efforts, which are like telling the passangers of the Titanic to stop smoking, as it is bad for them. That may be true- but is not applicable to the situation. They need to either get in the boats or swim- and Gore is telling them "it will all be ok if you stop smoking."

We need to look at long term changes to where and how we live- NOT try to stop a climate change that we cannot alter. But Gore has made it entirely about man-made carbon contributions ( for his own profit and benefit) and does not allow any discussion of how to deal with it, like moving populations, and adjusting agriculture to the NEW climate.

You keep bringing up articles that say it is getting warmer- but nothing that says we a) are causing it or b) can do anything to stop it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 08:55 PM

This article discusses at length the observations and measurements and analyses on this topic since the 1900's. Two-thirds of the way down the page there is a graph of land and water surface temperatures from 1880 to 2008. These are quite contrary to the statements up thread about "no warming ever found". In addition the brief interlude of non-warming or even cooling in the Northern hemisphere from the 1940s to the 1960s is examined with some reasonable explanations.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 08:44 PM

Furthermore, the solar flare cycle has been uncommonly LOW for the last few years, if my information is correct.

The air temperature data is not a complete index, since it is much less absorbent than water bodies and land masses. Satellites do not measure temperature in air directly; they infer it from measuring radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature. "The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analyzed the satellite data to calculate temperature trends have obtained a range of values. Among these groups are Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH).
To compare to the increase from the surface record (of approximately +0.07 °C/decade over the past century and +0.17 °C/decade since 1979) it is more appropriate to derive trends for the lower troposphere in which the stratospheric cooling is removed. Doing this, through June 2009:
RSS v3.1 finds a trend of +0.152 °C/decade.[3]
UAH analysis finds +0.12°C/decade.[4]
An alternative adjustment introduced by Fu et al. (2004)[5] finds trends (1979-2001) of +0.19 °C/decade when applied to the RSS data set.[6] A less regularly updated analysis is that of Vinnikov and Grody with +0.20°C per decade (1978–2004).[7], although it must be noted that RSS also has a higher trend when taken only to 2004 (+0.186 °C/decade)
In 1996, Hurrell and Trenberth published in the Journal of Climate an analysis showing a warming trend of +0.18 °C/decade from 1979-1995.[8]
Using the T2 channel (which include significant contributions from the stratosphere, which has cooled), Mears et al. of Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) find (through March 2008) a trend of +0.110 °C/decade.[3] Spencer and Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), find a smaller trend of +0.050 °C/decade.[9]"

(Source article here

"the warming trend in global-mean surface temperature observations during the past 20 years is undoubtedly real and is substantially greater than the average rate of warming during the twentieth century. The disparity between surface and upper air trends in no way invalidates the conclusion that surface temperature has been rising."[21][22]

Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (2000). "Executive Summary". Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. pp. 1–4. ISBN 0309068916.
^ Llanos, Miguel (2000-01-13). "Panel weighs in on global warming: Earth's surface is warmer, they say, even if upper air isn't". MSNBC.

"he following figure shows a calculation of straight temperature averages for all of the reporting stations for 1950 to 2000 [http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html]. While a straight average is not meaningful for global temperature calculation (since areas with more stations would have higher weighting), it illustrates that the disappearance of so many stations may have introduced an upward temperature bias. As can be seen in the figure, the straight average of all global stations does not fluctuate much until 1990, at which point the average temperature jumps up. This observational bias can influence the calculation of area-weighted averages to some extent. A study by Willmott, Robeson and Feddema ("Influence of Spatially Variable Instrument Networks on Climatic Averages, Geophysical Research Letters vol 18 No. 12, pp2249-2251, Dec 1991) calculated a +0.2C bias in the global average due to pre-1990 station closures.


See graphs at http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part2_GlobalTempMeasure.htm.

This is not to say that a lot of the data cannot be argued. But the blunt denial of surface warming trends, melting icecaps, liquefying permafrost, and other plain evidence is really thick. The right answer is to try and get better quantifying values and clearer analysis, rather than railling and denying.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 05:39 PM

Princeton Physicist: 'The idea that Congress can stop climate change is just hilarious' - Warns of 'climate change cult'
Declares Congress has been 'badly misinformed' on global warming

Wednesday, July 08, 2009By Marc Morano – Climate Depot
Award-winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who has published over 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers, warned Congress that it has been "badly misinformed" about man-made global warming fears.

"Congress has been getting bad intelligence," Happer, who was reportedly fired by former Vice President Al Gore in 1993 for failing to adhere to Gore's scientific views, declared in a July 6, 2009 interview.

"Congress has been badly misinformed about the so-called science that supports the claim that increasing CO2 levels will bring about catastrophic climate change," Happer explained to Newsmax.com. (Full audio of interview with Happer here.)

Happer did not mince words, calling the movement to promote man-made global warming fears a "climate change cult" and noted that "zealots" promoting climate fears "are actually extremely ignorant."

"The idea that Congress can stop climate change would be just hilarious if the actions they propose were not so damaging to the American people and even more [damaging] to the poorer people of the world," Happer said. [Editor's Note: President Obama and Energy Sec. Chu both believe they can control the Earth's thermostat. See: Obama's 'Climate Astrologer': Energy Sec. Chu claims he knows 'what the future will be 100 years from now' ]

"The so-called facts they are getting are just not true," Happer explained. " This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. As our Congressmen learn more about the facts, they will change their minds" and reject man-made climate fears.

'CO2 is not a pollutant' - Earth in 'CO2 famine'

Happer noted that "CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is essential for life." He added that the Earth will "be a better place with more CO2."

Happer testified before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on February 25, 2009 and noted that the Earth was currently in a "CO2 famine." Happer requested to be added to the U.S. Senate Report of over 700 dissenting scientists on December 22, 2008. Happer also co-authored an Open Letter to Congress with a team of scientists on July 1, 2009 warning: 'You Are Being Deceived About Global Warming' -- 'Earth has been cooling for ten years.'

In addition, Happer has led a group of 54 prominent physicists to request the American Physical Society (APS) revise its global warming position. The 54 physicists wrote to APS governing board: "Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th - 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today." (Note: Science magazine reportedly refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

In the July 6, 2009 interview, Happer noted that many are poised to benefit from the proposed Congressional carbon trading bill.


more

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 05:21 PM

Amos,

So, there is warming. Please show where any of what you posted indicates it is due to man-made carbon emmissions, which is ALL that Gore is taliking about.


"I think it is probably solar cycles that are the key factor in the Earth's warming and cooling phases...not our civilization's carbon dioxide emmissions. I've been thinking so for some time. The primary greenhouse gas is not CO2, it's water vapour. C02 is only a very small part of the greenhouse gas situation around this planet, the greenhouse effect is almost all caused by water vapour.

The source of heat on the surface of the Earth is the sun. If the sun becomes more active (which is revealed through its increasing sunspot activity) then this planet goes into a warming phase. If the sun becomes less active then we go into a cooling phase. I believe we are in a cooling phase right now and it's been happening for at least a couple of years. We were indeed in a warming phase back around the early years of this decade when the sun's activity was considerably highter than it is now...there is presently an extraordinary minimum of sunspot activity occurring.

I think the Global Warming crusade has been turned into a giant political football and, as pdq suggests, it has become a matter of what amounts to religious faith for its proponents."



I think I said this a few years ago. Nice to know that someone else has a little sense.

What is Gore et all doing to DEAL WITH THE GLOBAL WARMING?????


Not a thing - ALL that he does is try top stop carbon emmisions: He is NOT advocating taking any action at all to help anyone survive the actual events.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 03:47 PM

There is a very good treatment of the solar variability issue here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

I mean here.

It says (in part):
"The correlation between sun and climate ended in the 70's when the modern global warming trend began.

As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth's climate, the sun certainly has a strong influence on climate change. Consequently there have been many studies examining the link between solar variations and global temperatures.

The correlation between solar activity and temperature
The most commonly cited study by skeptics is a study by scientists from Finland and Germany that finds the sun has been more active in the last 60 years than anytime in the past 1150 years (Usoskin 2005). They also found temperatures closely correlate to solar activity.

However, a crucial finding of the study was the correlation between solar activity and temperature ended around 1975. At that point, temperatures rose while solar activity stayed level. This led them to conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

In other words, the study most quoted by skeptics actually concluded the sun can't be causing global warming. Ironically, the evidence that establishes the sun's close correlation with the Earth's temperature in the past also establishes it's blamelessness for global warming today."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 02:50 PM

You are seeing now and will continue to see extreme weather conditions throughout the world. Global warming also causes some unusual freezing in certain areas as well.
If you are not aware of what the Arctic and parts of Antarctica are experiencing then the question you ask show a lack of information. Looking at the polar ice caps melting,
the polar bears swimming, and the rising of the water table ought to tell you something.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 02:58 PM

I watched a panel discussion on TV at a friend's house (I have no TV) in 2005.

The Global Warming enthusiasts were near clinical depression because all the objective scientific data showed no increase in ambient air temperature in the preceeding decade. None. Squat. Zip. Nada.

Earlier in this thread, bb linked to some DOD satellite-based (ultra accurate) temperature data. No change in ambient air temperatures anywhere on the planet, above land or sea, since 1990. That is close to 20 years of no temperature increase.

In fact, in the last 4 years or so, there may have been a very slight drop.

In the 1970 the story was that air pollution was blocking the Sun and causing Global Cooling. They said it would cause a New Ice Age if we didn't stop using so much fossil fuel. This whole scheme is just a way to keep the populace perpetually aggitated.They can be manpulated more easily it seems.

We have important things to worry about. GW ain't one of them

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 02:48 PM

I think it is probably solar cycles that are the key factor in the Earth's warming and cooling phases...not our civilization's carbon dioxide emmissions. I've been thinking so for some time. The primary greenhouse gas is not CO2, it's water vapour. C02 is only a very small part of the greenhouse gas situation around this planet, the greenhouse effect is almost all caused by water vapour.

The source of heat on the surface of the Earth is the sun. If the sun becomes more active (which is revealed through its increasing sunspot activity) then this planet goes into a warming phase. If the sun becomes less active then we go into a cooling phase. I believe we are in a cooling phase right now and it's been happening for at least a couple of years. We were indeed in a warming phase back around the early years of this decade when the sun's activity was considerably highter than it is now...there is presently an extraordinary minimum of sunspot activity occurring.

I think the Global Warming crusade has been turned into a giant political football and, as pdq suggests, it has become a matter of what amounts to religious faith for its proponents.

I may be mistaken too. Nevertheless, I have my suspicions that the present mainstream ideas about global warming are in error.

We'll see, won't we? In time it will become quite clear whether or not it is the human-based C02 emmissions that are causing global warming or whether that was a misperception.

If it turns out to have been a misperception, then people will be yelling about something else instead when that time comes. There's always something new to panic about, some new threat to life as we know it...and a little panic goes a long way toward providing employment and lucrative careers for a whole bunch of people.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 02:23 PM

Well, I welcome the dissenting voice if there are good solid data behind them. The post PDQ added looks like it has some behind it, but it is hard to disentangle from the strongly partisan rhetoric.

Solar variability cycles--is there a source on their historical data ptterns and present values?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 02:04 PM

If what you say about Greenland is true, Amos, the world may soon find itself in the horrible natural conditions that existed back when the Vikings had a thriving settlement in Greenland and farmed the fertile land!!!!!

This could be good news for latter day Vikings, though, because Greenland will once again be green.

Meanwhile, the temperatures remain unseasonably cool in Ontario, Canada...and it's a relief from the heat of high summer. So it's not all bad.

I wonder what the Gulf Stream is doing? Could that account for the cooler temperatures here? Could we be on the edge of a sudden tip into a min-Ice Age???? Will I find myself under a glacier in the next few years?

Worry! Worry! Fret! Fret!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:17 PM

It's Getting Cold Out There

A Commentary by Debra J. Saunders

No wonder skeptics consider the left's belief in man-made global warming as akin to a fad religion -- last week in Italy, G8 leaders pledged to not allow the Earth's temperature to rise more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

For its next act, the G8 can part the Red Sea. The worst part is: These are the brainy swells who think of themselves as -- all bow -- Men of Science.

The funny part is: G8 leaders can't even decide the year from which emissions must be reduced. 1990? 2005? "This question is a mystery for everyone," an aide to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said.

And while President Obama led the charge for the G8 nations to agree to an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in industrial nations by 2050, the same Russian aide dissed the standard as "likely unattainable."

No worries, the language was non-binding. Global-warming believers say that they are all about science, but their emphasis is not on results so much as declarations of belief.

Faith. Mystery. Promises to engage in pious acts. Global warming is a religion. While Obama was in Italy preaching big cuts in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, he was losing some of his flock in Washington. The House may have passed the 1,200-page cap-and-trade bill largely unread, but Senate Democrats are combing the fine print and not liking what they see. As Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said of the bill, "We need to be a leader in the world but we don't want to be a sucker."

Republicans who oppose the legislation are positively gleeful.

For some issues, it can be more fun being part of the opposition, as Democrats are discovering.

During the last administration, Senate Dems could slam President George W. Bush for not supporting the 1997 Kyoto global-warming treaty, secure in the knowledge that they would never have to vote yea or nay on a treaty that they knew could be poison for the coal industry and family checkbooks.

That's why the Senate in 1997 voted 95-0 against any global-warming treaty that exempted developing nations like China. Now China wants none of the G8's goal for it to halve its greenhouse gases -- and the Dems are stuck with a leader who wants to save the planet.

When the GOP was in the White House, Democrats got to play scientific martyrs. James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, would go running to the New York Times or Washington Post with the lament that the Bushies were trying to muzzle his pro-global-warming science. No matter how many times he appeared on TV, the stories kept reporting on allegations that Bush was censoring science.

Now GOP senators have their own Hansen: Alan Carlin of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Be it noted, Carlin is not a scientist.

He's an MIT-trained economist, albeit with a degree in physics from the California Institute of Technology, who has worked as an analyst at the EPA since 1974. In March, he co-wrote a 98-page paper that began, "We have become increasingly concerned that EPA and many other agencies and countries have paid too little attention to the science of global warming." He fears politics are steering what should be scientific research.

The analysis noted that global temperatures have declined over the last 11 years while carbon emissions have increased. It cited a 2009 paper that found "solar variability" may have had more to do with any warming over the last few decades than rising greenhouse gas levels. Carlin also wondered why the EPA bought into global-warming doom scenarios, when, despite increased greenhouse gas levels, U.S. crop yields are up, air quality is improved and Americans are living longer.

Did the EPA welcome a dissenting voice? Au contraire. According to e-mails released last month by Sam Kazman, general counsel for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank, Carlin's supervisor told him not to "have any direct communication" with anyone in-house or elsewhere on the issue. And: "I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change."

Only later, Carlin told me, did the EPA grant him permission to post the paper on his personal website and talk to the media.

Kazman argues that the EPA's failure to post Carlin's paper officially violates court rulings that require agencies to disclose discarded evidence when making rules. And: "The bigger irony is that this administration has been touting its commitment to scientific integrity and agency transparency."

Now, you can argue that the Obama administration simply wanted to present a clear message on a policy on which it already had settled. But why is it muzzling science when Bush did it, but not worthy of a New York Times story when Obama does it?

Don't say that Obama has science on his side. As the Carlin paper noted, "We do not believe that science is writing a description of the world or the opinions of world authorities on a particular subject ... The question in our view is not what someone believes, but how what he or she believes corresponds with real world data."

The global-warming community's reaction to real-world data -- and the lack of warming in this century -- has been to remain true believers. Except now they call it "climate change."
    ©2008 Rasmussen Reports Inc.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 03:15 PM

"From his trawler that motors along the Nuuk fjord, fisherman Johannes Heilmann has watched helplessly in recent years as climate change takes its toll on Greenland.
Ads by Google
Boat Donation Program - www.Cars4Causes.net
Turn Your Boat into Tax Deductible Charity Donation. Call 800-766-2273

Global warming is occurring twice as fast in the Arctic as in the rest of the world.
Heilmann, in his 60s with a craggy, rugged face from years of work in the outdoors, says he and his colleagues can no longer take their dogsleds out to the edge of the ice floes to fish because the ice isn't thick enough to carry the weight.
And yet the freezing waters with large chunks of ice are too difficult to navigate in their small fishing boats, making fishing near impossible.
"We can't use the sleds any more, the ice isn't thick enough," laments Heilmann, saying he now has to rely on bird hunting, and sometimes seal hunting, while waiting for the summer months to go fishing.
At Ilulissat, more than 200 kilometres (125 miles) north of the Arctic Circle, Emil Osterman tells local daily Sermitsiaq how "in 1968, when I was 13, we went fishing in December in the fjord and the ice was several metres thick."
Now, more than 40 years on, the ice at the very same location at the same time of year "is only 30 centimetres thick."
The head of Nuuk's fishing and hunting association, Leif Fontaine, explains how climate warming is also affecting the region's shrimp industry -- Greenland's main export and biggest industrial sector.
"When the water gets warmer, the shrimp become rarer as they move further north," he says."...
Phys Org, July 9 2009

---

(PhysOrg.com) -- Arctic sea ice thinned dramatically between the winters of 2004 and 2008, with thin seasonal ice replacing thick older ice as the dominant type for the first time on record. The new results, based on data from a NASA Earth-orbiting spacecraft, provide further evidence for the rapid, ongoing transformation of the Arctic's ice cover.

Scientists from NASA and the University of Washington in Seattle conducted the most comprehensive survey to date using observations from NASA's Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite, known as ICESat, to make the first basin-wide estimate of the thickness and volume of the Arctic Ocean's ice cover. Ron Kwok of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., led the research team, which published its findings July 7 in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans.

The Arctic ice cap grows each winter as the sun sets for several months and intense cold ensues. In the summer, wind and ocean currents cause some of the ice naturally to flow out of the Arctic, while much of it melts in place. But not all of the Arctic ice melts each summer; the thicker, older ice is more likely to survive. Seasonal sea ice usually reaches about 2 meters (6 feet) in thickness, while multi-year ice averages 3 meters (9 feet).
Using ICESat measurements, scientists found that overall Arctic sea ice thinned about 0.17 meters (7 inches) a year, for a total of 0.68 meters (2.2 feet) over four winters. The total area covered by the thicker, older "multi-year" ice that has survived one or more summers shrank by 42 percent.

Previously, scientists relied only on measurements of area to determine how much of the Arctic Ocean is covered in ice, but ICESat makes it possible to monitor ice thickness and volume changes over the entire Arctic Ocean for the first time. The results give scientists a better understanding of the regional distribution of ice and provide better insight into what is happening in the Arctic.

Ibid, July 7, 2009

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 02:16 AM

"The plane faces some truly frightening prospects"

And so does the planet.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 02:09 AM

It's not a Hobson's Choice we have here. We ALL live on Noah's Ark, it's just a little bigger than Noah ever knew. What ever we can do, no matter how seemingly trivial, to improve this planet is simply a good investment for our children, grand children and ggchildren. The plane faces some truly frightening prospects--and we will have to deal with them unless we clean up our act. The results will not be good to see.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 12:22 AM

You know, Bill, the funny thing is....most of the religious fundamentalists I've ever met struck me as pretty foolish or deluded or just not very well-informed people or even fanatics...and yet....

I have met so far in my life 2 Jehovah's Witnesses that are astonishingly bright people, among the brightest and finest people I've ever met, very capable, and of the best character as well. They're an extraordinary pair of young people (a married couple in late 20s, early 30s). I'd trust them with absolutely anything. I count them among my best friends.

Yet they believe that their Bible is the ultimate authority. ???

This does not in any way prevent them from being extremely modern and effective and useful citizens. One is a dental hygeinist, the other is a businessman who assists companies in improving their operations, trains people in administration, etc.

They're very well educated, they're very articulate, extremely intelligent, well travelled, cosmopolitan, and very well informed. They are also kind, forgiving, generous, spirited, and good people.

Man, I could only wish there were more around like these two!

And I cannot fathom how they can put so much faith in an ancient religous book like the Bible...but it has proven one thing to me, and it is this:

"Thou shalt not pre-judge others merely by their stated beliefs. No. Ye shall judge them only by their character, their works, and their actual behaviour."

So I never assume anymore that all the people in any particular group fit some common stereotype we've all heard about that group. It is not necessarily so. There are some brilliant and very good people where you may least expect them.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 12:10 AM

Yessir. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 12:08 AM

"We only differ about which sources ARE reliable.."

...and the 'we' that includes 'me' can only continue to point out the differences in definitions about what passes for credibility and reliability.


"...and there's not a darned thing you or I can do about it!"

...see above.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jul 09 - 12:01 AM

"The "...conservative fundamentalist Christians" got their opinions from some pretty odd 'sources'."


Definitely, Bill! As you and I would see it, that is. But you must remember one thing: they themselves do not consider their sources to be odd sources. ;-) They believe them to be 100% reliable sources, and there's not a darned thing you or I can do about it!

Everyone in the world gets his info from some sources which he considers reliable. We all do that. We only differ about which sources ARE reliable. And that's what's at the heart of most unresolvable political disputes...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 11:38 PM

The "...conservative fundamentalist Christians" got their opinions from some pretty odd 'sources'.

Mainstream environmentalists get their opinions from detailed & exhaustive, testable research and technical data.

If they are correct, it is important...in the meantime, I'd be curious who is saying they are "...a sinner who should be silenced and cast into the outer darkness.." or any similar fates.

You wouldn't be slightly exaggerating the rhetoric, would you, Midchuck?

Strong opinions about important topics need not only vigorous promotion, but also detailed support in the details. Even a brief search will get many, many details of temperature changes, geologic research of historical precedent, graphs of human production of various gases compared to climate changes and the chemical/physical causes that we have learned to understand. (much as we gradually learned why smoking cigarettes was more than just a statistical anomaly)

Why wouldn't those who have **strong evidence** that we face a grave crisis state their conclusions with passion?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 10:08 PM

Exactly, Midchuck. I've noticed the same thing.

It's what's called "bigotry", the dictionary definition of which is "utter intolerance for beliefs, opinions, or creeds which differ from one's own".

And it is equally apparent among both conservative zealots and liberal/progressive zealots, both of whom are securely armoured by their self-righteous certainty that they hold the moral high ground...and THE TRUTH.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Midchuck
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 09:46 PM

I don't know if global warming is real or not; and if it is real, I don't know if its primary cause it human activity or something else.

I do know that the resemblance between the rhetoric of conservative fundamentalist Christians and that of liberal environmentalists is quite startling. In both cases, you are not only a sinner who should be silenced and cast into the outer darkness if you disagree with them; you are a sinner who should be silenced and cast into the outer darkness if you indicate that you don't think the evidence either way is solid enough for you to form an opinion.

But each group will say that their position is fully logical and the other group's position is ignorant fanaticism.

Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 05:01 PM

Amos,

a. Gore states that global warming is real

b. Gore states that we should limit CO2 production to *prevent* global warming

c. Gore DOES NOT state that any action should be taken to deal with the effects of global warming, which he stated in a exists. In fact, when asked, he repeats his assertion that the right laws will stop global warming, with no evidence at all indicating that that is the case.


THIS failure is what I object to. Given that he advocates b., his failure of C. is reason enough to think poorly of him, and think he is more interested in political capital than in DEALING WITH GLOBAL WARMING.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 05:01 PM

"IF we started moving populations now..."

*grin*...who decides who gets moved?...and to where? You want to be the one who tells Canada they get Spanish as a 3rd national language?

It all reminds me of the interviewer asking Will Rogers back about 1940...(paraphrased)"What should we do about the German submarines?"

"Easy,", Will replied, "Boil the ocean!"

"But, how could they do that?"

"Oh, we have technical experts for that", Will explained...."I'm just the idea man."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 04:30 PM

It was mentioned above, so here is...


                                                         a website about the Great Barrier Reef


{BTW, in the late 1960s the same reef was "dying" due to pollution and DDT. Go figure.}

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 03:27 PM

That's idiocy, BB, as he has not done anything to indicate he wants global warming or population moves. THis kind of bitter, senseless assertion is counter-productive in extremis.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jul 09 - 02:59 PM

"I don't see you advocating the reduction in population necessary to allow EITHER moving OR staying put and coping. "

Great idea- who decides who gets to be reduced???


IF we started moving populations now, instead of wasting effort trying to stop what is happening, there would be less need for population reduction.

But as it stands, we can have a nuclear war, and there will be plenty of room for the (few) survivors.

I guess that is what Gore wants...