BS: Where's the Global Warming

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 11:37 AM

Here is an update to the summer ice depletion in Alaska (More at the Link):


"The National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado said sea ice coverage on Friday was recorded at a summer low of 1.84 million square miles. The ice cover appeared to have reached its minimum extent for the year that day.

"The average September sea ice extent from 1979 to 2000 was 2.7 million square miles. This year's coverage was 753,000 square miles fewer than that number."

Unidriectional Ice



http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/091610/sta_708449141.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 04:23 PM

Melting sea ice forces walruses ashore in Alaska

By The Associated Press
Tuesday, September 14th, 2010 -- 7:19 am

Tens of thousands of walruses camp out on Alaska shore because sea ice melting profusely.

Tens of thousands of walruses have come ashore in northwest Alaska because the sea ice they normally rest on has melted.

Federal scientists say this massive move to shore by walruses is unusual in the United States. But it has happened at least twice before, in 2007 and 2009. In those years Arctic sea ice also was at or near record low levels.

The population of walruses stretches "for one mile or more. This is just packed shoulder-to-shoulder," U.S. Geological Survey biologist Anthony Fischbach said in a telephone interview from Alaska. He estimated their number at tens of thousands.

Scientists with two federal agencies are most concerned about the one-ton female walruses stampeding and crushing each other and their smaller calves near Point Lay, Alaska, on the Chukchi Sea. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is trying to change airplane flight patterns to avoid spooking the animals. Officials have also asked locals to be judicious about hunting, said agency spokesman Bruce Woods.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 11:24 AM

Well one warm balmy evening in November sat outside a folkie pub in Bristol UK having a cold beer everyone was remarking on the it some with alarm. For selfish reasons it wasn't an unpleasant experience but it had been noted that the seasons have definitely shifted around bringing with it more incidents of extreme weather patterns and disasters grouped together very closely. Not to mention many countries experiencing uncharacteristic weather for the region for the time of year, the loss of habitat and decline in numbers of some species of animals and not just through poaching. At least people are more environmentally aware than they used to be, even from nursery school age which can only be good after all they will be the parents of the future. If you don't maintain a building it falls down isn't it better to keep it in good running order to prevent that happening? The recent Iclandic volcano ground flights to a halt in the UK leaving people trying to get home from their holiday break or business trips. Whatever the rights or wrongs of that, some complained it was an over-reaction by the Health and Safety lot. I live right near the Aeroplane Industry along a flight path, the air quality had changed dramatically and it was noticeable not only for the vapour free skies but noise free too. The volcano situation was only over a relatively short period of time but the difference was so apparent. All those years of emmissions from aircraft traffic in our skies must have had some impact on the atmosphere.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 09:44 AM

Isosstatic rebound in Greenland is complicated because there are two phenomena superimposed. the response of Earth's crust/mantle to loading or unloading is viscoelastic, that is, there is an initial, relatively fast elastic response, and then a long, slow and gradually diminishing viscous response. Greenland is responding to two unloading events - the first is the loss of the great ice caps that occurred about 17000 years ago. The rebound from this is in the viscous stage, and should be slowing. BUT, terrestrial GPS, and satellite gravity and altimetry data all indicate that rebound in Greenland has been accelerating since about 1990. This cannot be related to ice loss in the last glacial maximum. What it is entirely consistent with (and remember there are at least three separate lines of evidence) is the instantaneous (geologically speaking) elastic response to recent dramatic ice loss on Greenland. But it is not just Greenland. Isostatic uplift is accelerating on Greenland, Iceland and Svalbard. the conclusion is inescapable for anyone who truly understands (or cares to understand) the science. The entire North Atlantic region is losing continental ice at an accelerating pace.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 10:41 PM

Amos!

QUOTE
Greenland is losing ice mass at an increasing rate, dumping more icebergs into the ocean because of warming temperatures
UNQUOTE

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 06:36 PM

"In the last two years, several teams have estimated Greenland is shedding roughly 230 gigatonnes of ice, or 230 billion tonnes, per year and West Antarctica around 132 gigatonnes annually."

"With glacial isostatic adjustment modelled in, the loss from Greenland is put at 104 gigatonnes, plus or minus 23 gigatonnes, and 64 gigatonnes from West Antarctica, plus or minus 32 gigatonnes"


This is a change reducing the estimated melting- somewhat significant ( 104 vs 230, and 64 vs 132) Well over 50% reduction of melting.


Seems like a significant amount to me....

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: gnu
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 06:22 PM

Drift... whatever.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 12:48 PM

"These revealed, among other things, that southern Greenland is in fact subsiding, as the crust beneath it is pulled by the post-glacial rebound from northern America" quoted by bb

That effect, surely, is a temporary one? Or perhaps permanent, in the sense that land in Greenland will stay submerged as land farther west in the north remains higher?

What argument are you making? Do you believe that it shows there is no rapid warming occurring?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 12:36 PM

"These revealed, among other things, that southern Greenland is in fact subsiding, as the crust beneath it is pulled by the post-glacial rebound from northern America.

With glacial isostatic adjustment modelled in, the loss from Greenland is put at 104 gigatonnes, plus or minus 23 gigatonnes, and 64 gigatonnes from West Antarctica, plus or minus 32 gigatonnes"

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 12:11 PM

The earth in Alaska- especially in southeast Alaska - is also rebounding. As glaciers melt and their weight is removed, land rises. There are various areas of Juneau where landowners have recently acquired more land and a number of claims have arisen as to who actually does own the new land.

I fail to see, however, that this in any way negates rising temperatures. Rather, it illustrates it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 12:00 PM

Climate: New study slashes estimate of icecap loss
AFP - Wednesday, September 8

Climate: New study slashes estimate of icecap loss

PARIS (AFP) - – Estimates of the rate of ice loss from Greenland and West Antarctica, one of the most worrying questions in the global warming debate, should be halved, according to Dutch and US scientists.

In the last two years, several teams have estimated Greenland is shedding roughly 230 gigatonnes of ice, or 230 billion tonnes, per year and West Antarctica around 132 gigatonnes annually.

Together, that would account for more than half of the annual three-millimetre (0.2 inch) yearly rise in sea levels, a pace that compares dramatically with 1.8mm (0.07 inches) annually in the early 1960s.

But, according to the new study, published in the September issue of the journal Nature Geoscience, the ice estimates fail to correct for a phenomenon known as glacial isostatic adjustment.

This is the term for the rebounding of Earth's crust following the last Ice Age.

Glaciers that were kilometers (miles) thick smothered Antarctica and most of the northern hemisphere for tens of thousands of years, compressing the elastic crust beneath it with their titanic weight.

When the glaciers started to retreat around 20,000 years ago, the crust started to rebound, and is still doing so.

This movement, though, is not just a single vertical motion, lead researcher Bert Vermeersen of Delft Technical University, in the Netherlands, said in phone interview with AFP.

"A good analogy is that it's like a mattress after someone has been sleeping on it all night," he said.

The weight of the sleeper creates a hollow as the material compress downwards and outwards. When the person gets up, the mattress starts to recover. This movement, seen in close-up, is both upwards and downwards and also sideways, too, as the decompressed material expands outwards and pulls on adjacent stuffing.

Often ignored or considered a minor factor in previous research, post-glacial rebound turns out to be important, says the paper.

It looks at tiny changes in Earth's gravitational field provided by two satellites since 2002, from GPS measurements on land, and from figures for sea floor pressure.

These revealed, among other things, that southern Greenland is in fact subsiding, as the crust beneath it is pulled by the post-glacial rebound from northern America.

With glacial isostatic adjustment modelled in, the loss from Greenland is put at 104 gigatonnes, plus or minus 23 gigatonnes, and 64 gigatonnes from West Antarctica, plus or minus 32 gigatonnes.

These variations show a large degree of uncertainty, but Vermeersen believes that even so a clearer picture is emerging on icesheet loss.

"The corrections for deformations of the Earth's crust have a considerable effect on the amount of ice that is estimated to be melting each year," said Vermeersen, whose team worked with NASA's Jet Propulsation Laboratory and the Netherlands Institute for Space Research.

"We have concluded that the Greenland and West Antarctica ice caps are melting at approximately half the speed originally predicted."

If the figures for overall sea level rise are accurate, icesheet loss would be contribute about 30 percent, rather than roughly half, to the total, said Vermeersen. The rest would come mainly from thermal expansion, meaning that as the sea warms it rises.

The debate is important because of fears that Earth's biggest reservoirs of ice, capable of driving up ocean levels by many metres (feet) if lost, are melting much faster than global-warming scenarios had predicted.

In 2007, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted oceans would rise by 18-59 centimeters (7.2 and 23.6 inches) by 2100, a figure that at its upper range means vulnerable coastal cities would become swamped within a few generations.

The increase would depend on warming estimated at between 1.1 and 6.4 degrees Celsius (1.98-11.52 degrees Fahrenheit) this century, the IPCC said. It stressed, though, the uncertainties about icesheet loss.


http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20100908/tts-climate-warming-science-ice-c1b2fc3.html

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 12:21 AM

"A University of Delaware researcher reports that an "ice island" four times the size of Manhattan has calved from Greenland's Petermann Glacier. The last time the Arctic lost such a large chunk of ice was in 1962.

"In the early morning hours of August 5, 2010, an ice island four times the size of Manhattan was born in northern Greenland," said Andreas Muenchow, associate professor of physical ocean science and engineering at the University of Delaware's College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment. Muenchow's research in Nares Strait, between Greenland and Canada, is supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF).

Satellite imagery of this remote area at 81 degrees N latitude and 61 degrees W longitude, about 620 miles [1,000 km] south of the North Pole, reveals that Petermann Glacier lost about one-quarter of its 43-mile long [70 km] floating ice-shelf.

Trudy Wohlleben of the Canadian Ice Service discovered the ice island within hours after NASA's MODIS-Aqua satellite took the data on Aug. 5, at 8:40 UTC (4:40 EDT), Muenchow said. These raw data were downloaded, processed, and analyzed at the University of Delaware in near real-time as part of Muenchow's NSF research.

Petermann Glacier, the parent of the new ice island, is one of the two largest remaining glaciers in Greenland that terminate in floating shelves. The glacier connects the great Greenland ice sheet directly with the ocean.
The new ice island has an area of at least 100 square miles and a thickness up to half the height of the Empire State Building."
(Phys Org)

---

Good thing the planet isn't warming, huh??


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 08:26 PM

Warmest decade on record: new climate report

Warmest decade on record: new climate report
By Bob Beale
July 29, 2010

A major international climate study has confirmed that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.

The 2009 State of the Climate report released today by the US National Climatic Data Centre (NCDC) drew on data from many measurable climate indicators that all pointed to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable.

Dr Lisa Alexander, a senior lecturer in the UNSW Climate Change Research Centre, was one of the lead authors of the study, as editor and author of Chapter 2 - Global Climate.

"This is NOAA's most comprehensive statement of the global climate to date," says Dr Alexander. "It brought together over 300 authors from 48 countries. In the chapter on global climate in which I was involved there were 61 authors, so it was a difficult task to organise the summary and ensure that everything was done comprehensively and consistently.

"The main take home message from the report is that average surface temperature estimates for the globe in 2009 marked the end of the warmest decade in the instrumental record - that is, since about 1870.

"Each of the last three decades has been progressively warmer than all earlier decades. This is irrespective of which of the multiple independent data sources that are used to calculate global surface temperature.

"In total, 37 climate indicators were analysed in the report. They included, for example, surface temperature over the land and oceans, temperatures and humidity in the atmosphere and the size and extent of glaciers. They all point to a climate that is responding to a warming world and the effects of increases in global concentrations of greenhouse gases.

"Last year was one of the top 10 warmest years globally and 2009 also ended Australia's warmest decade since records began in 1910 - 0.48 deg C above the 1961-1990 average.

"Preliminary data indicate a high probability as well that 2009 will be the 19th consecutive year that glaciers have lost mass. Greenhouse gas concentrations continued to rise in 2009, with CO2 increasing at a rate above the 1978 to 2008 average.

"Some new satellite technologies for deriving weather and climate parameters have been introduced into the report for the first time, providing the exciting potential for further independent estimates of global surface temperature for example."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 07:06 PM

"incorrectly associated synchrony being misinterpreted as causality"

The post hoc ergo propter hoc - (after this therefore because of this) fallacy is based upon the mistaken notion that simply because one thing happens after another, the first event was a cause of the second event. Post hoc reasoning is the basis for many superstitions and erroneous beliefs.

Sadly many do not understand this. Even 'Science' in the past has fallen into this trap.

Take stomach ulcers - now it has been documented that a previously unknown genus of bacteria able to live in high levels of acid are 'responsible' - my grandfather died of stomach cancer after years of ulcer hassles and 'now proved crank treatments'.

Even 'philostogen' before it was shown that oxygen was the cause of certain effect in burning.

Many pseudo science thrive on this however - MPB is this applies to things like astrology, numerology, and many other systems of belief ascribed to 'faith'.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 05:05 PM

Yup. But the biggest problem with that argument is that the Sun is *cooling*!!!!!! (Notice, I said the Sun itself,and not the amount of sunlight reaching Earth - this depends hugely on cloudcover and aerosols). For the past 35 years, the Sun itself has been cooling, while the Earth has been warming.

So the argument is not just a red herring, but a false red herring.
Just as the Earth has Milankovitch cycles, all other bodies in the solar system have eccentric and wobbly orbits. Citing several of these (amongst the hundreds of known planets and moons in the solar system) does not prove "solar system warming" by any stretch of the imagination. We would need data from *a lot* more bodies to prove "solar system warming" as opposed to cherry-picked synchrony (love that word).

But it makes a clever, easy to repeat, argument that intimidates people who are intentionally made to feel less smart thant the clever denialist.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 01:09 PM

Bruce's argument is that it isn't man on earth induced planetary warming--it's solar system warming.

My sense is, based on the data I've seen so far, that this is a red herring of incorrectly associated synchrony being misinterpreted as causality.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 12:42 PM

International sources have documented that the last six months are the warmest *ever* on record.

But I suspect that the denialists already have a canned response (probably involving a global conspiracy).

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100715_globalstats.html

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 10:17 AM

Australian sources have just released documentation that Australia has just had the warmest decade.... oh JUSTFUCKINGGOOGLEIT.com

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 09:21 AM

"So the melting of the Martian ice cap, and change to the Great Red Spot on Jupiter, after 400 years of observations, are due to the last 35 years of human pollution???


Just wanted to be sure I understood what you were saying."

Typical smarmy A-hole Bruce.

Go re-read *all* of my posts and see if I said that okay?

And please get back to me with the citation okay?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 05:50 AM

Links here to scientific papers on the Martian Ice Caps
Global Warming on Mars, Ice Caps Melting

Here is an article about the Great Red Spot on Jupiter. It seems to be losing heat energy to the rest of the atmosphere:

Is Jupiter's Red Spot on its way out?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 08:30 PM

So the melting of the Martian ice cap, and change to the Great Red Spot on Jupiter, after 400 years of observations, are due to the last 35 years of human pollution???


Just wanted to be sure I understood what you were saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 07:36 PM

The sun is the source of virtually all energy on Earth. Thus climate has always strongly tracked solar activity. Numerous studies of many different types of data, covering many thousands to millions of years of Earth history bear this out.

In the last 35 years, the sun has shown a very slight cooling trend, while the Earth has warmed.

It ain't the sun, no matter what variable you choose to characterize "The Sun". The sun and Earth are going in different directions temperature-wise, but only over the last 35 years. In those same 35 years, human population approximately doubled. Correlation does not prove causation, but surely, even to the politically-motivated, that must suggest the possibility of a human influence.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 12:44 PM

"The scientific consensus is that solar variations do not play a major role in determining present-day observed climate change.[50] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report states that the measured magnitude of recent solar variation is much smaller than the amplification effect due to greenhouse gases.[51]

Estimates of long-term solar irradiance changes have decreased since the TAR. However, empirical results of detectable tropospheric changes have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change. The most likely mechanism is considered to be some combination of direct forcing by changes in total solar irradiance, and indirect effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation on the stratosphere. Least certain are indirect effects induced by galactic cosmic rays [1].

In 2002, Lean et al.[52] stated that while "There is ... growing empirical evidence for the Sun's role in climate change on multiple time scales including the 11-year cycle", "changes in terrestrial proxies of solar activity (such as the 14C and 10Be cosmogenic isotopes and the aa geomagnetic index) can occur in the absence of long-term (i.e., secular) solar irradiance changes ... because the stochastic response increases with the cycle amplitude, not because there is an actual secular irradiance change." They conclude that because of this, "long-term climate change may appear to track the amplitude of the solar activity cycles," but that "Solar radiative forcing of climate is reduced by a factor of 5 when the background component is omitted from historical reconstructions of total solar irradiance ...This suggests that general circulation model (GCM) simulations of twentieth century warming may overestimate the role of solar irradiance variability." More recently, a study and review of existing literature published in Nature in September 2006 suggests that the evidence is solidly on the side of solar brightness having relatively little effect on global climate, with little likelihood of significant shifts in solar output over long periods of time.[11][53] Lockwood and Fröhlich, 2007, find that there "is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth's pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century," but that "over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures."[54]

A paper by Benestad and Schmidt [55] concludes that "the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980." This paper disagrees with the conclusions of a Scafetta and West study,[56] who claim that solar variability is a major if not dominant climate forcing. Based on correlations between specific climate and solar forcing reconstructions, they argue that a "realistic climate scenario is the one described by a large preindustrial secular variability (e.g., the paleoclimate temperature reconstruction by Moberg et al.)[57] with the total solar irradiance experiencing low secular variability (as the one shown by Wang et al.)[58]. Under this scenario, according to Scafetta and West, the Sun might have contributed 50% of the observed global warming since 1900.[10] Stott et al. estimate that the residual effects of the prolonged high solar activity during the last 30 years account for between 16% and 36% of warming from 1950 to 1999.[59]"

References footnoted in the WIkipedia article on Solar Variation::

1. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance

10. 10.^ a b Scafetta, N.; West, B. J. (2006). "Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature record". Geophys. Res. Lett. 33: L17718. doi:10.1029/2006GL027142. http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0617/2006GL027142/.

50.^ Joanna Haigh

51.^ Houghton, J.T.; Ding, Y.; Griggs, D.J. et al., eds (2001). "6.11 Total Solar Irradiance—Figure 6.6: Global, annual mean radiative forcings (1750 to present)". Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig6-6.htm. Retrieved 15 April 2007.

52.^ Lean, J.L.; Wang, Y.-M; Sheeley Jr., N.R (2002). ""The effect of increasing solar activity on the Sun's total and open magnetic flux during multiple cycles: Implications for solar forcing of climate"". Geophysical Research Letters 29 (24): 77–1~77–4. doi:10.1029/2002GL015880. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002.../2002GL015880.shtml.

53.^ Foukal, P.; Fröhlich, C.; Spruit, H.; Wigley, T. M. L. (2006). "Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate" (PDF). Nature 443 (7108): 161. doi:10.1038/nature05072. http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publications/preprints/pp2006/MPA2001.pdf.

54.^ Lockwood, Mike; Claus Fröhlich (2007). "Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature" (PDF). Proceedings of the Royal Society A 463: 2447. doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880. http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2009Q1/111/Readings/Lockwood2007_Recent_oppositely_directed_trends.pdf. "Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.".

55.^ Benestad,, R. E.; G. A. Schmidt (21 July 2009). "Solar trends and global warming". Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres. doi:10.1029/2008JD011639. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/2009_Benestad_Schmidt.pdf. "the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980.".

56.^ a b Scafetta, N.; West, B. J. (2007). "Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the Northern Hemisphere, surface temperature records since 1600". J. Geophys. Res. 112: D24S03. doi:10.1029/2007JD008437. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008437.shtml. as PDF

57.^ Moberg, A; Sonechkin, DM; Holmgren, K; Datsenko, NM; Karlén, W; Lauritzen, SE (2005). "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data". Nature 433 (7026): 613–7. doi:10.1038/nature03265. PMID 15703742. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html.

58.^ Wang, Y.‐M.; Lean, J. L.; Sheeley, Jr., N. R. (May 2005). "Modeling the Sun's Magnetic Field and Irradiance since 1713". The Astrophysical Journal 625: 522–38. doi:10.1086/429689. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/429689. )

59.^ a b Stott, Peter A.; Gareth S. Jones and John F. B. Mitchell (15 2003). "Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change". Journal of ClimateDecember 16: 4079–4093. http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pdf. Retrieved 2005.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 12:38 PM

I think a thirty year slice is an index of climate, yes, indeed. From your cosmic ivory tower, you may prefer a much broader time slice. But you are being terribly sarcastic about these news reports, as if you think I concocted them. Andlinking this to Obama? Sheeshe!!

And just to correct your woeful irritation, I have indeed addressed your remarks about the solar flux, and overall solar output . You prefer to think otherwise, to feed your own blind spot, but that don't make it so. It is obvious in theory that if the graph of solar output (maybe even with some lag in it) matches the ramp up of global temperatures, that it could be blamed for them. The ramp of human emissions does match. Whatcha got?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 12:15 PM

Amos,

" the lowest ice coverage recorded for that month in the satellite data record, which began in 1979"

Still talking weather, not climate.


EVEN is the climate is getting warmer, that does not prove man-made causes. You keep ignoring the solar flux, and overall solar output ( different things, I hope you realize).



It's like claiming "Since the sun rose, Obama must be right."

You keep proving that the sun rose again.

The sun can rise EVEN when Obama is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 11:06 AM

"Sea ice in the Arctic is again in rapid retreat this summer, putting the region on pace to match the record lows seen in 2007, the head of Russia's environmental agency said Tuesday, according to a Bloomberg News report.

The sea ice figures cited by Aleksandr Frolov, chief of Russia's federal Hydrometeorological and Environmental Monitoring Service, dovetail with data released this month by the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Both Russian and United States data show Arctic sea ice extending to about 4.2 million square miles in June, the lowest ice coverage recorded for that month in the satellite data record, which began in 1979. If the melting trend continues, sea ice levels could fall by September to less than 1.6 million square miles, the low recorded in 2007.

Mr. Frolov told Bloomberg that the fast pace of the melt could mean that the North Pole could be ice-free during the summer within just few a decades, far sooner than previously estimated. Arctic waterways typically choked with ice are now opening up, he said.

But there are some indications that this summer may not be one for the record books. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, ice loss has already slowed in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas as a result of "tongues" of thicker, older ice in the region. Nonetheless, continued rapid ice loss in July would set the stage for a new low."
(Green Blog in NYT)

---

Please note that the previous decade has been the warmest decade in recorded history. See this report for hard data.)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 03:07 AM

Can we fix climate with geoengineering?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 10:28 PM

Not just the warmest June... the warmest SIX MONTHS in recorded history. Clearly thermometers all over the world are in on the conspiracy.

ASSHOLES!

Yes, you. You know who I am talking to.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 10:24 PM

Well, hope y'all enjoyed the warmest June in recorded history.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 09:22 PM

It's innovative for big corporations to promote conspiracy theories, and unfortunately for the planet, it worked.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 10:18 AM

"...First of all, we didn't fail to act because of legitimate doubts about the science. Every piece of valid evidence — long-term temperature averages that smooth out year-to-year fluctuations, Arctic sea ice volume, melting of glaciers, the ratio of record highs to record lows — points to a continuing, and quite possibly accelerating, rise in global temperatures.

Nor is this evidence tainted by scientific misbehavior. You've probably heard about the accusations leveled against climate researchers — allegations of fabricated data, the supposedly damning e-mail messages of "Climategate," and so on. What you may not have heard, because it has received much less publicity, is that every one of these supposed scandals was eventually unmasked as a fraud concocted by opponents of climate action, then bought into by many in the news media. You don't believe such things can happen? Think Shirley Sherrod.

Did reasonable concerns about the economic impact of climate legislation block action? No. It has always been funny, in a gallows humor sort of way, to watch conservatives who laud the limitless power and flexibility of markets turn around and insist that the economy would collapse if we were to put a price on carbon. All serious estimates suggest that we could phase in limits on greenhouse gas emissions with at most a small impact on the economy's growth rate.

So it wasn't the science, the scientists, or the economics that killed action on climate change. What was it?

The answer is, the usual suspects: greed and cowardice.

If you want to understand opposition to climate action, follow the money. The economy as a whole wouldn't be significantly hurt if we put a price on carbon, but certain industries — above all, the coal and oil industries — would. And those industries have mounted a huge disinformation campaign to protect their bottom lines.

Look at the scientists who question the consensus on climate change; look at the organizations pushing fake scandals; look at the think tanks claiming that any effort to limit emissions would cripple the economy. Again and again, you'll find that they're on the receiving end of a pipeline of funding that starts with big energy companies, like Exxon Mobil, which has spent tens of millions of dollars promoting climate-change denial, or Koch Industries, which has been sponsoring anti-environmental organizations for two decades.

Or look at the politicians who have been most vociferously opposed to climate action. Where do they get much of their campaign money? You already know the answer.

By itself, however, greed wouldn't have triumphed. It needed the aid of cowardice — above all, the cowardice of politicians who know how big a threat global warming poses, who supported action in the past, but who deserted their posts at the crucial moment."

Paul Krugman, NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 09:27 AM

Amos you're right. Climategate happened three weeks before the Copenhagen summit, and the media hysteria basically sabotaged the summit. as you pointed out, the scientists have since been found to be right. see report from Michael Moore's site

Strangely the global media which sprayed outrage at the seeming implications of leaked emails has been remarkably backwards in coming forwards about the British House of Commons select committee, that reported in March that the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and the CRU remained intact.

Those leaked emails effectively turned public opinion backwards, and meanwhile governments are not acting.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Jul 10 - 06:52 AM

Yes. Migratory birds are such damn liars.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Big Phil
Date: 14 Jul 10 - 04:21 AM

Where's the Global Warming - No such thing.

Lies, dammned lies and statistics.

Phil*

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Jul 10 - 12:03 PM

Arctic sea ice melting faster than ever
Retreat forecast for 2010. On pace to shrink more than in 2007 when scientists raised climate alarm


http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Arctic+melting+faster+than+ever/3269912/story.html

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Jul 10 - 09:13 PM

QUOTE
There is no "scientific orthodoxy". That is just the point of science. Everything is open to question and attack. Theories are born ridiculed, some gain wide acceptance, and often die ridiculed. There is no cosmic answer key. It is only the wide acceptance (by knowledgeable people by the way) that determines "truth" in any age.
UNQUOTE

Which is why the loudest deniers usually have the flavour of (uneducated) religious fanatics. "Faith" only goes so far in Science - even the Aussies who got the Nobel Prize for their ground breaking work on stomach ulcers who had faith in their concept got nowhere (even being ridiculed) till their work was easily repeated by others _ I have just found a doctor who accepted this treatment and my desire to undergo it and my 30 year old ulcers have been relieved.

QUOTE
The opposition is almost exclusively non-knowledgeable; not necessarily stupid or evil, but certainly outside of their field of training and experience, or holding a very large political or financial stake in the outcome of the debate.
UNQUOTE

As in the twin Towers (and countless other) conspiracies... sigh ...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 12 Jul 10 - 12:51 PM

Stunning ignorance of science is on display by some here.
There is no "scientific orthodoxy". That is just the point of science. Everything is open to question and attack. Theories are born ridiculed, some gain wide acceptance, and often die ridiculed. There is no cosmic answer key. It is only the wide acceptance (by knowledgable people by the way) that determines "truth" in any age. The genius of the climate change deniers is that they have created an illusion that there is not widespread acceptance by knowledgable people. In fact, there *is*. The opposition is almost exclusively non-knowledgable; not necessarily stupid or evil, but certainly outside of their field of training and experience, or holding a very large political or financial stake in the outcome of the debate. Those with true knowledge of the subject and no financial interest are all on one side.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Jul 10 - 05:47 PM

"The sun's constant interaction with Earth makes it important for solar physicists to keep track of solar activity. Stormy periods can force special safety precautions by satellite operators and power grid managers, and astronauts can be put at risk from bursts of radiation spat out by solar storm. Scientists need to more reliably predict what's in store."

Sigh - normal humanity has enormous difficulty coping with what mathematicians call genuinely 'random' events. Hence gambling, etc....

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jul 10 - 10:10 AM

From the NEw York Times today:

"Perhaps now we can put the manufactured controversy known as Climategate behind us and turn to the task of actually doing something about global warming. On Wednesday, a panel in Britain concluded that scientists whose e-mail had been hacked late last year had not, as critics alleged, distorted scientific evidence to prove that global warming was occurring and that human beings were primarily responsible.

It was the fifth such review of hundreds of e-mail exchanges among some of the worldÕs most prominent climatologists. Some of the e-mail messages, purloined last November, were mean-spirited, others were dismissive of contrarian views, and others revealed a timid reluctance to share data. Climate skeptics pounced on them as evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate research to support predetermined ideas about global warming.

The panel found no such conspiracy. It complained mildly about one poorly explained temperature chart discussed in the e-mail, but otherwise found no reason to dispute the scientistsÕ Òrigor and honesty.Ó Two earlier panels convened by BritainÕs Royal Society and the House of Commons reached essentially the same verdict. And this month, a second panel at Penn State University exonerated Michael Mann, a prominent climatologist and faculty member, of scientific wrongdoing.

Dr. Mann, who was part of the e-mail exchange, had been accused of misusing data to prove that the rise in temperatures over the last century was directly linked to steadily rising levels of carbon dioxide. His findings, confirmed many times by others, are central to the argument that fossil fuels must be taxed or regulated.

Another (no less overblown) climate change controversy may also be receding from view. This one involves an incorrect assertion in the United NationsÕ 3,000-page report on climate change in 2007 that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. The U.N. acknowledged the error and promised to tighten its review procedures. Even so, this and one or two other trivial mistakes were presented by some as further proof that scientists cannot be trusted and that warming is a hoax.

There have since been several reports upholding the U.N.Õs basic findings, including a major assessment in May from the National Academy of Sciences. This assessment not only confirmed the relationship between climate change and human activities but warned of growing risks Ñ sea level rise, drought, disease Ñ that must swiftly be addressed by firm action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

Given the trajectory the scientists say we are on, one must hope that the academyÕs report, and WednesdayÕs debunking of Climategate, will receive as much circulation as the original, diversionary controversies."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 08:09 PM

he sun's temper ebbs and flows on what scientists had thought was a pretty predictable cycle, but lately our closest star has been acting up.

Typically, a few stormy years would knock out a satellite or two and maybe trip a power grid on Earth. Then a few years of quiet, and then back to the bad behavior. But an extremely long stretch of low activity in recent years has scientists baffled and scrambling for better forecasting models.

An expected minimum of solar activity, between 2008 and 2009, was unusually deep. And while the sun would normally ramp up activity by now, heading into its next cycle, the sun may be on the verge of a weak solar cycle instead, astronomers said at the 216th meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Miami last month.

Ads by Google San Diego's Top Solar Co.Hundreds of Satisified Clients Thousands of panels installed www.SullivanSolarPower.com Summer Solar PowerInstall a Solar System for $0 Down. Act Now, Before the Summer Heat! www.SolarCity.com/GetMoreSolarInfo
"We're witnessing something unlike anything we've seen in 100 years," said David Hathaway of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala.

The sun's constant interaction with Earth makes it important for solar physicists to keep track of solar activity. Stormy periods can force special safety precautions by satellite operators and power grid managers, and astronauts can be put at risk from bursts of radiation spat out by solar storm. Scientists need to more reliably predict what's in store.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 01:23 PM

Senator Lindsey Graham, by no flight of the imagination, could not be called the much-maligned Liberal. But Time Magazine has an interesting article:

"Surprisingly, perhaps, it is Graham who has been most forceful in making the case for effective steps to counter climate change. "I have been to enough college campuses to know â€" if you are 30 or younger, this climate issue is not a debate," he told New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman in February. "It's a value ... From a Republican point of view, we should buy into it and embrace it and not belittle them."


**********************************
Beyond the political stakes, there are existential ones. Today's citizens and leaders are not only the first generation to realize that we are living in the era of global warming. We could also be the last that has a chance of slowing and eventually reversing the process.

***********************************

If we do not get the process of mitigating climate change started right now, our descendants, however skilled, will not be able to cope with the consequences. If we do nothing, we will likely bequeath to them a less habitable â€" perhaps even uninhabitable â€" planet, the most negative legacy imaginable."

Ethical Case Combatting GW Should Appeal to Conservatives

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Leadfingers
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 06:11 AM

1400 - and still depressed by the way it is just talked about , but SO little actually done

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 03:50 AM

freda underhill

The implications of global warming are so challenging, it's is understandable that people may not want to believe it's true.

I think you have hit the point. I would count myself amongst those who would desperately like to find that it wasn't true because the consequences are so appalling but I have to listen to all the arguments for and against.

Paradoxically, what most convinces me that it must be true is the weakness of the arguments of the sceptics.

There seems to have been a recent shift, at least on this thread, to a point of view that it is happening but we should take no notice of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 05:31 PM

And I agree totally with you on that point = and with Sawzaw. Thing is, down the road he will have a different take on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 01:28 PM

ok, so how does hat negate

"We should do everything that is economically feasible to reduce energy use and pollution."

Whether is is related to Global warming or not, it is a good idea.

If I did not think that man-made sources were the major cause of GW ( as I tend to think based on the evidence) I would still agree with the first statement- IT HAS LITTLE to do with GW causes.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 01:15 PM

Keep in mind, Bruce, that Sawz is on record as not believing in global warming at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 12:43 PM

Frankly, Bruce, I would prefer that Sawzaw come back and tell us what he meant.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 11:27 AM

Ebbie:

How about
"We should do everything that is economically feasible to reduce energy use and pollution."

Wether is is related to Global warming or not, it is a good idea.


THAT seem to be the intent- are you saying you disagree??????

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 04:33 AM

The implications of global warming are so challenging, it's is understandable that people may not want to believe it's true.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Jun 10 - 11:45 PM

I was wondering about that myself, Snail. Let's see: "We should do everything that is economically feasible to reduce energy use and pollution, regardless of the issue of global warming." Could one change the wording somewhat and still have the same message?

"Aside from the issue of global warming..."
"Notwithstanding the issue of global warming..."
"Regardless of the issue of global warming..."

"Regardless of global warming..." Nope. Didn't say that.

Like you said, I think he is saying "Never mind the issue of global warming..."