BS: Where's the Global Warming

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 06 Dec 11 - 01:17 PM

" Global warming, of which there has been none for the last decade and a half, is only a normal correction after the 'little ice age' "

To show that this is based on science and not just a political talking point, can you provide a citation please?

Peer-reviewed literature preferred of course.

Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ringer
Date: 06 Dec 11 - 10:30 AM

"Current pledges for curbing carbon emissions will doom the world to global warming of 3.5 C, massively overshooting the UN target of 2 C, researchers reported at the climate talks here on Tuesday."

Well, they would report that, wouldn't thay? If they said, "Global warming, of which there has been none for the last decade and a half, is only a normal correction after the 'little ice age'," they'd be out of a job, wouldn't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: bobad
Date: 06 Dec 11 - 08:09 AM

World 'heading for 3.5 C warming': study

Current pledges for curbing carbon emissions will doom the world to global warming of 3.5 C, massively overshooting the UN target of 2 C, researchers reported at the climate talks here on Tuesday.

Output of heat-trapping carbon gases is rising so fast that governments have only four years left to avert a massive extra bill for meeting the two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) target, they said.

"The current pledges are heading towards a global emissionspathway that will take warming to 3.5 C goal (6.3 F)," according to an estimate issued by a consortium of German researchers.

The world is on a "high-warming, high-cost, high-risk pathway," they said.

The report, compiled by Climate Analytics and Ecofys, which are German firms that specialise in carbon data, was issued on the sidelines of the 194-nation UN talks in Durban. The 12-day conference runs until Friday.

The 2 C (3.6 F) goal, initiated at the stormy Copenhagen Summit of 2009, was enshrined at last year's conference of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) along with a less feasible target of 1.5 C (2.7 F).

Accompanying these objectives is a roster of pledges by nation-states about what they intend to do to rein in their emissions.

The promises mark the first time that all countries have been coaxed into declaring specific carbon-curbing actions.

But the measures are not subject to any international compliance regime and do not incur any penalties if they are not met.

The report said current pledges would lead to global emissions in 2020 of 55 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) or its equivalent in 2020. This is 11 billion tonnes above the 44 billion tonnes consistent with meeting the 2 C (3.6 F) objective smoothly.

As a result, costs in energy efficiency and switching to cleaner power will rise very sharply after 2020 in order to recover lost headway. Global emissions would have to fall by 3.8 percent annually from 2020 to 2050, using 2000 as the benchmark year per year.

But this effort would be roughly halved, to two percent, if action to brake emissions growth is initiated within the next three years to bring the tally back on line to 44 billion tonnes by 2020.

The figures carried in the report concur with similar estimates, published last month by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP).

Scientists caution that 2 C (3.6 F) is no guarantee of a safe haven against climate change and consider 3.5 C (6.3 F) to be an extremely dangerous scenario.

It would badly worsen droughts, flood and storms and affect sea levels, spelling famine and homelessness for tens of millions.

Already, 0.8 C (1.44 F) of the 2 C (3.6 F) has occurred since the start of the Industrial Revolution, when coal — followed by oil and gas — powered the rise to prosperity.

Agence France-Presse

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 24 Nov 11 - 06:15 PM

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 24 Nov 11 - 03:41 PM

i,m sure freeda made an honest mistake paul!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Rumncoke
Date: 24 Nov 11 - 12:36 PM

The Autumn has been so warm we are facing Winter water shortages here in the UK - I supose we did have Summer droughts in the 70's, so it is a change.

Anne Croucher

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Paul Burke
Date: 24 Nov 11 - 02:03 AM

That's SOOOO stupid Freda, thinking the world is only 4000 years old, when the Bible clearly says it's 6000 years old!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 23 Nov 11 - 09:33 PM

well pete, strangely there are some who are too savvy to be flat earthers or creationists but strangely have declared themselves climate change cynics.. it's hard to fathom, but conspiracy theories are appealing, and the anti-climate change companies have presented climate change info as being another attempt by left whingers to subvert the dominant paradigm.

when politics overrides science, and when dogmatists masquerade as scientists, things get messy. but the truth is out there :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Nov 11 - 04:18 PM

hey freda-do you know anyone that is a flat earther;cant be many.and do you know anyone who believes the world is only 4000 years old?
that would be about half way through the OT!.
NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT i know-but since you mention it...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: bobad
Date: 23 Nov 11 - 01:50 PM

The recent loss of sea ice in the Arctic is greater than any natural variation in the past 1½ millennia, a Canadian study shows.

"The recent sea ice decline … appears to be unprecedented," said Christian Zdanowicz, a glaciologist at Natural Resources Canada, who co-led the study and is a co-author of the paper published Wednesday online in Nature.

"We kind of have to conclude that there's a strong chance that there's a human influence embedded in that signal."

Arctic sea ice loss unprecedented in 1,450 years

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 08:43 AM

I should have thought of that, Paul, I suppose.

Hope they can adapt to breathing underwater.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Paul Burke
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 05:53 AM

We already know their fourth line of defence Greg. Animals and plants will adapt to the new conditions. This is particularly rich given the links between science- deniers and young- earth creationists.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 04:32 AM

The earth is flat, the world was created 4000 years ago, and global warming is happening or is not man made..

then again..

Globally, observed CO2 emissions, temperature and sea levels are rising faster than expected. The warming has been fastest over land, and greatest in the higher latitudes of the northern hemisphere. Global ocean temperature rose by 0.10 ºC between 1961 and 2003, to a depth of 700 metres.

In Australia, there has been a 0.9 ºC warming since 1950. We have already observed changes to our climate that are more rapid than anything the earth has experienced for at least 1800 years. "Consensus as strong as the one that has developed around this topic is rare in science."
Donald Kennedy, former Editor-In-Chief, Science.

Results of this climate change include:

retreat of glaciers and sea-ice
a decline of 10-15 per cent of the Arctic sea ice extent and a 40 per cent decrease in its average thickness
snow depth at the start of October has declined 40 per cent in the last 40 years in the Australian Alps
an average sea level rise of 20 mm per decade over the last 50 years
changes in mating and migration times of birds
pole-ward and altitudinal shifts of plants and animals (especially in the Alpine zone)
an increase in coral bleaching due to increased water temperature.

Source? Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Oct 11 - 11:35 AM

Global warming is coming to your home town. Watch for weather shifts, tornadoes,
flooding, rising of sea levels, harsh cold periods as well as droughts, stultifying pollution, all brought to you courtesy of irresponsible energy corporations, and global warming deniers.

Keystone XL Pipeline goes through=game over.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Oct 11 - 06:48 PM

Makes ya wonder what absurdity the fourth line of defense is gonna be, don't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 28 Oct 11 - 10:07 AM

LH
Make a serious study of the geologic record and you will see some significant and scarey differences between past non-anthropogenic climate change, and this one.
Think about climate change rate.
Then think about the rate at which evolution happens.
For such a free thinker, you are really sipping the koolaid on this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 27 Oct 11 - 10:09 PM

Of course this won't put an end to the debate.

Their first line of defense was "Global warming isn't happening."

Their second line of defense is "Global warming is happening, but it isn't man-made."

Their third line of defense will be "Global warming is happening, and it's man-made, but it's good for you."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 27 Oct 11 - 02:29 PM

Most scientists and govenments around the world agree that the average ambient air temperatue (a few feet above land) has risen an average of 1 degree F since the mid 1800s. That is only 0.74 degrees C.

That is perfectly normal for such a period of time.

Yes, we have Global Normalcy. How boring. Sacrifice a goat?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Oct 11 - 02:19 PM

Climate change? Of course. Climate on this planet is always changing, and I suspect it will continue doing so. There are warming and cooling cycles, and there always have been. The past geological record confirms that.

No one is questioning climate change. People are questioning the recent popular theory of human-created carbon-emission-based global warming as being the primary factor IN CAUSING present day climate change....as opposed to other natural factors that have nothing to do with human-based carbon emissions.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 27 Oct 11 - 12:23 PM

The Skeptical BEST project (endorsed by Anthony Watts and the Koch brothers) has actually concluded that climate change is real.

BEST project

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/a-skeptical-physicist-ends-up-confirming-climate-data/2011/10/20/gIQA6viC1L_blog.html



This should put an end to the phoney "debate", but it won't.

Just watch below...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 03:04 AM

Study links extreme weather to climate change

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 07:40 AM

A little while ago there was a constant banging on about the Polar Ice Cap how it was melting, the Polar Bear was at risk as a species because of our irresponsibility on waste and omissions. I am not disputing the findings however looking at a recent article in a newspaper it tells me that there has been some improvement to the number of bears (good) so why would this be all of a sudden? Perhaps it was down to me and others refusing the plastic bags supplied in Marks & Sparks and the glass jars that we religiously separated that made all the difference (I don't think so somehow)! Or is it that nature finds a way eventually as long as we keep a responsible eye on it?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 05:38 AM

If you read the article, the clever new approach is that 'if they gonna make money out of it, then they is for it' approach .. which cuts the rug out from under Abbot the 'Big Dissenter' here ... his rich corporate mates who provide the political funding will tell him to shut up so they can make money :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 07:56 PM

Hate to break it to ya', f-troupe, but this all comes down to $$$$$... 99 scientists can get up and say that man is creating global warming and 1 can get up and say "hogwash" and guess what... The so-called liberal media will give the loonie equal time??? As if it were 50/50...

Go figure???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 07:42 PM

Adjusting the pitch on climate change

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 22 Jan 11 - 08:07 PM

Steve do you remember that SF story called "March of the Morons"? The idea was that the uneducated ignorant were outnumbering the learned....

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jan 11 - 06:33 AM

I meant to add that you should click on the "intermediate" tab in that link, which deals precisely with your data. Scientifically this time.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jan 11 - 06:30 AM

Lies, damned lies and statistics, Ringer. You've been had. Maybe you wanted to be.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 09:01 PM

"This country will pay a huge price for this ignorance."

And not only the USA, but also the rest of us poor mugs world wide...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 02:30 PM

What is not understood about global warming is that it affects "climate change" which means that because of the rise of the earth's temperature, extremes in weather conditions can be expected from very cold to very hot while storms and floods take place such as in
Queensland, Australia, or Pakistan and elsewhere in the world.

Be on the lookout for a big storm in California due soon with massive flooding.

The hydrologic cycle will be affected and an overabundance of wet will be pulled up into the sky from the rising tides of the sea, hence more flooding.

The global warming deniers, those who also deny the effects of nuclear waste, gas fracturing, carbon emissions, genetically modified crops, desertification and deforestation all display the ignorance of science in the educational system in the U.S. This country will pay a huge price for this ignorance.

Welcome to a massive Gulf Coast.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 02:19 PM

Now look at that figure with the Jason and Topex data.
Cover it all with your hand (don't smudge the screen) except the last 21 little green dots. Make a conclusion about the Earth's long-term climate trend based on just those 21.
Now, remove your hand and look at the 20 previous years.
Do you see a long-term trend? (yes)
Do you see any other sets of 21 points that if looked at all by themselves indicate falling sea level? (yes)
What happens *after* those 21 you just picked? (rises again)

Which tells us more about Earth's climate; any set of 21 consecutive points you might carefully select, or the entire 20 year time series? (I'll let you answer that one)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 02:13 PM

Ringer,
Kehr is citing Goddard's data, and my statements hold true.
It is the sleaziest bit of cherry picking imaginable. Ignore a 20-year trend defined by thousands of data points, and focus on the last 21 points only because they suit your politics.
And you fell for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 08:42 AM

Last year tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record

The Earth in 2010 experienced temperatures higher than the 20th century average for the 34th year in a row, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said. Last year was the wettest on record, NOAA said citing Global Historical Climatology Network which made the calculation based on global average precipitation, even though regional patterns varied widely.

The analysis also tracked weather changes that contributed to massive floods in Pakistan and a heat wave in Russia, saying an "unusually strong jet stream" from June to August was to blame.

A separate report by Canada's Environment Ministry said that last year was the warmest in Canada since it began keeping meteorological records 63 years ago.

NASA analysts said the shrinking sea ice in the Arctic may have made winters in Europe and Canada warmer than usual. "Arctic sea ice acts like a blanket, insulating the atmosphere from the ocean's heat. Take away that blanket, and the heat can escape into the atmosphere, increasing local surface temperatures. Regions in northeast Canada were more than 18 degrees (F) warmer than normal in December.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 07:58 AM

Brisbane floods: before and after
Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:00am AEDT

High-resolution aerial photos taken over Brisbane last week have revealed the scale of devastation across dozens of suburbs and tens of thousands of homes and businesses.

The aerial photos of the Brisbane floods were taken in flyovers on January 13 and January 14.

Hover over each photo to view the devastation caused by flooding.

This is part one of an ABC News special presentation showing before and after photos of the floods

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ringer
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 07:31 AM

Did you actually read the title of the piece, TIA? Kehr's article (who's Goddard?) refers to 2010, that's why he concentrates on the data from 2010. It's not rocket-science.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 06:50 AM

Aussie Weather!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 11:44 AM

Ringer,
If you read carefully, you will see that Goddard's argument is based on taking a time series of data going back to 1992 (about 450 to 500 Jason and Topex measurements), and throwing out all but the last 21.
Now *that* is science.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 11:36 AM

O Come on. Follow the clicky and look at the first graph. Do you really not understand the difference between short-term variability and long-term trend? Really?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 07:40 AM

Well, the sea level may be dropping and all that, but in Brisbane, we are now having reflooding of areas that were recently flooded, due to the King Tides backing up the drains. This tidal street flooding does not happen every year.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ringer
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 05:09 AM

"Based on the most current data it appears that 2010 is going to show the largest drop in global sea level ever recorded in the modern era. Since many followers of global warming believe that the rate of sea level rise is increasing, a significant drop in the global sea level highlights serious flaws in the IPCC projections."

Not just the smallest rise, you'll note, but the biggest drop!

Click here.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 01:22 PM

ÒWhen I found the pilot, he was still strapped into his seat, crunched over like he was sleeping, some black hair falling from his skull,Ó said Eulalio Gonz‡lez, 49, the climber who carried Mr. Pab—nÕs mummified body down the mountain. ÒThere are more ice mummies in the peaks above us,Ó he said. ÒMelting glaciers will bring them to us.Ó

The discovery of Mr. Pab—nÕs partially preserved remains was one of a growing number of finds pulled from the worldÕs glaciers and snow fields in recent years as warmer temperatures cause the ice and snow to melt, exposing their long-held secrets. The bodies that have emerged were mummified naturally, with extreme cold and dry air performing the work that resins and oils did for ancient Egyptians and other cultures.

Up and down the spine of the Andes, long plagued by airplane crashes and climbing mishaps, the discoveries are helping to solve decades-old mysteries.

In one such find, in the late Õ90s, climbers on Mount Tupungato in Argentina discovered parts the wreckage of the Star Dust, a fabled British aircraft rumored to have disappeared in 1947 with a cargo of gold.

The climbers found no treasure at the crash site of the Avro Lancastrian plane flown by British South American Airways. But they did discover a preserved torso and a hand with pointed, manicured fingernails, an eerie fashion relic of 1940s London that served as testament to the fate of the planeÕs passengers and crew.

Scientists say the retreat of the ice is an unexpected boon for those yearning to peer back in time.

ÒIt looks like the warming trend seen in many regions is continuing,Ó said Gerald Holdsworth, a glaciologist at the Arctic Institute of North America in Calgary, Alberta. ÒThere are still some large snowbanks left in promising places, and many glaciers of all different shapes, orientations and sizes, so the finds could go on for a long time yet.Ó

NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 12:24 PM

"...Everyone seems to understand that the climate problem cannot be wished away. Negotiations on how to fight climate change continue. After the latest round of talks in China, the U.N. process will resume in Cancún, Mexico, in a few weeks. Participants, however, seem more anxious about "lowering expectations" than about achieving the first tangible results. Diplomats and experts are stuck on technical issues, and voices are already being heard in favor of settling for the lowest common denominator or even reformatting the process, with the hope that the business community might come up with purely technocratic solutions to climate change.

This is not the way to go forward. Although business — with its ability to adapt new technologies and make a profit by doing so — could of course play a major role in the transition to a low carbon economy, it would be naïve to expect it to be the primary driver of this process.

The business community will always look out for its own interests and short-term profits. As for the theory that "the free market" will solve every problem, few find that idea convincing after its proponents brought the world economy to the brink of disaster.

Equally unacceptable are suggestions that the fight against climate chaos should be left largely to the most "advanced" nations. This would not only infringe on the role of the U.N., but it risks widening the gap between developed and developing countries.

Clearly, as countries like China increase their economic power they must assume greater responsibility for the environment. We need to persuade them that it is in their own best interests to do so. Furthermore, we need a strong and meaningful effort to create incentives for them to adopt energy-efficient and alternative fuel technologies, as well as to stimulate those who are ready to transfer such technologies to emerging countries. Agreements on all these issues can only be hammered out within the framework of a multilateral process under U.N. auspices. Cancún offers another chance to re-energize the process.

So, despite the fact that 2010 has been a mostly disappointing year for those who advocate urgent action to save our planet, we cannot afford presumptions of failure or pessimism. There are enough people in civil society who have not succumbed to defeatism and are ready to act to make governments listen. The global self-preservation instinct must finally force world leaders to resume serious negotiations with ambitious goals. "

Mikhail Gorbachev, leader of the Soviet Union from 1985 until its dissolution in 1991, is a founder and board member of Green Cross International. (NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: bobad
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 01:29 PM

GOP to investigate 'scientific fraud' of global warming: report

By Sahil Kapur
Wednesday, November 3rd, 2010 -- 12:39 pm

Fresh off a dramatic victory in which it retook the House leadership, the Republican Party intends to hold major hearings probing the supposed "scientific fraud" behind global climate change.

The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder related the news in a little-noticed article Wednesday morning.

The effort is a likely attempt to out-step the White House on energy policy moving forward. Legislation on energy and climate change reform, one of President Barack Obama campaign promises, has yet to materialize, though Obama's EPA recently classified carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

Holding hearings would please the Republicans' conservative base, which increasingly doubts the scientific basis for global warming -- especially human-induced global warming -- and provide a reflection of the new GOP's tenor.

Ron Brownstein of the National Journal reported last week that in Tuesday's midterm election, "virtually all of the serious 2010 GOP challengers" have denied that there is scientific evidence that global warming is even happening.

"The GOP is stampeding toward an absolutist rejection of climate science that appears unmatched among major political parties around the globe, even conservative ones," Brownstein wrote.

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists -- and just about every accredited international scientific institution in the world -- unequivocally agree that global warming occurring and is fueled by human activity.

Scientists say inaction will lead to an unmitigated spiral of polarized -- and over time rising -- temperatures, melting ice caps, rising sea levels and droughts, among other consequences.

The Republican belief to the contrary incubates the party's fervent opposition not only to cap and trade but to any measures reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The Obama administration has long anticipated efforts from the GOP to weaken the Environmental Protection Agency, and plan to strongly enforce environmental regulations.

The deeply differing views of the White House and likely energy chairman, Texas Republican Joe Barton, suggests that conflicts over the issue are inevitable in the new divided government.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 11:10 AM

Nigel Leck, a software developer by day, was tired of arguing with anti-science crackpots on Twitter. So, like any good programmer, he wrote a script to do it for him.

The result is the Twitter chatbot @AI_AGW. Its operation is fairly simple: Every five minutes, it searches twitter for several hundred set phrases that tend to correspond to any of the usual tired arguments about how global warming isn't happening or humans aren't responsible for it.

It then spits back at the twitterer who made that argument a canned response culled from a database of hundreds. The responses are matched to the argument in question -- tweets about how Neptune is warming just like the earth, for example, are met with the appropriate links to scientific sources explaining why that hardly constitutes evidence that the source of global warming on earth is a warming sun.

The database began as a simple collection of responses written by Leck himself, but these days quite a few of the rejoinders are culled from a university source whom Leck says he isn't at liberty to divulge.
...

from here.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 12:29 PM

When was the last time the Northwest and Northeast Passages melted free 3 consecutive years?

The first recorded attempt to find and sail the Northwest Passage occurred in 1497, and ended in failure. The thick ice choking the waterways thwarted all attempts at passage for the next four centuries. While we cannot say for certain the Northwest Passage did not open between 1497 and 1900, it is highly unlikely that a string of three consecutive summers where both the Northwest and Northeast Passage opened would have escaped the notice of early mariners and whalers, who were very active in northern waters. We can be sure the Northern Passages were never open between 1900 - 2005, as we have detailed ice edge records from ships (Walsh and Chapman, 2001). A very cold period dominated northern latitudes during the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s, known as "The Little Ice Age", further arguing against an opening of the Northern Passages during those centuries. The Northern Passages may have been open at some period during the Medieval Warm Period, between 900 and 1300 AD. Temperatures in Europe were similar, though probably a little cooler, than present-day temperatures. However, the Medieval Warm Period warmth was not global, and it is questionable whether or not sections of the Northern Passages along the Alaskan, Canadian, and Russian shores shared in the warmth of the Medieval Warm Period. So, a better candidate for the last previous multi-year opening of the Northern Passages was the period 6,000 - 8,500 years ago, when the Earth's orbital variations brought more sunlight to the Arctic in summer than at present. Funder and Kjaer (2007) found extensive systems of wave generated beach ridges along the North Greenland coast that suggested the Arctic Ocean was ice-free in the summer for over 1,000 years during that period. Prior to that, the next likely time the Northern Passages were open was during the last inter-glacial period, 120,000 years ago. Arctic temperatures then were 2 - 3 degrees Centigrade higher than present-day temperatures, and sea levels were 4 - 6 meters higher. It is possible we'll know better soon. A new technique that examines organic compounds left behind in Arctic sediments by diatoms that live in sea ice give hope that a detailed record of sea ice extent extending back to the end of the Ice Age 12,000 years ago may be possible (Belt et al., 2007). The researchers are studying sediments along the Northwest Passage in hopes of being able to determine when the Passage was last open.

But Antarctic sea ice is at a record high!

Climate change contrarians like to diminish the importance of Arctic sea ice loss by pointing out that in recent years, Antarctic sea ice extent has hit several record highs, including in July of 2010. They fail to mention, though, the fact that ocean temperatures in the Antarctic sea ice region have warmed significantly in recent decades--and faster than the global average temperature rise! So how can sea ice increase when ocean temperatures are warming so dramatically? This topic is discussed in detail by one of my favorite bloggers, physicist John Cook over at skepticalscience.com. In his words:

"There are several contributing factors. One is the drop in ozone levels over Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole has caused cooling in the stratosphere (Gillet 2003). A side-effect is a strengthening of the cyclonic winds that circle the Antarctic continent (Thompson 2002). The wind pushes sea ice around, creating areas of open water known as polynyas. More polynyas leads to increased sea ice production (Turner 2009).

Another contributor is changes in ocean circulation. The Southern Ocean consists of a layer of cold water near the surface and a layer of warmer water below. Water from the warmer layer rises up to the surface, melting sea ice. However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases. This freshens the surface waters, leading to a surface layer less dense than the saltier, warmer water below. The layers become more stratified and mix less. Less heat is transported upwards from the deeper, warmer layer. Hence less sea ice is melted (Zhang 2007). "

This counter-intuitive result shows how complicated our climate system is. Climate change contrarians are masters at obscuring the truth by taking counter-intuitive climate events like this out of context, and twisting them into a warped but believable non-scientific narrative. Lawmakers tend to hear a lot of these narratives, since the lobbying wings of the oil and gas industry spent $175 million last year to help convince Congress not to regulate their industry. This number does not include the tens of millions more spent by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, coal industry, and other business interests intent upon stymying legislation that might cut into profits of the oil, coal, and gas industry. For comparison, the lobbying money spent by environmental groups in 2009 was approximately $22.5 million. Spending for PR efforts aimed at influencing opinion on climate change issues probably has a similar disparity. This is a major reason why you may have heard, "Hey, Antarctic sea ice is increasing, so why worry about Arctic sea ice loss?"

Commentary

Diminishing the importance of Arctic sea ice loss by calling attention to Antarctic sea ice gain is like telling someone to ignore the fire smoldering in their attic, and instead go appreciate the coolness of the basement, because there is no fire there. Planet Earth's attic is on fire. This fire is almost certain to grow much worse. When the summertime Arctic sea ice starts melting completely a few years or decades hence, the Arctic will warm rapidly, potentially leading to large releases of methane gas stored in permafrost and in undersea "methane ice" deposits. Methane is 20 - 25 times more potent than CO2 at warming the climate, meaning that the fire in Earth's attic will inexorably spread to the rest of the globe. To deny that the fire exists, or that the fire is natural, or that the fire is too expensive to fight are all falsehoods. This fire requires our immediate and urgent attention. Volunteer efforts to fight the fire by burning less coal, oil, and gas are laudable, but insufficient. It's like trying to fight a 3-alarm blaze with a garden hose. Every time you reduce your use of oil, gas, or coal, you make the price of those fuels cheaper, encouraging someone else to burn them. Global warming will not slow down until Big Government puts a price on oil, coal and gas--a price that starts out low but increases every year. This can be done via emissions trading, a "fee and dividend" approach, or other means. People are rightfully mistrustful of the ability of Big Government to solve problems, but we don't have a choice. The alternative is to geoengineer our climate--an extremely risky solution. It is time to pay the big bucks and send out the fire engines, before the conflagration gets totally out of control. Consider the Great Russian Heat Wave of 2010 and the Pakistani floods of 2010 a warning. These sorts of extreme events will grow far more common in the decades to come, because of human-caused climate change.

References
Belt, S.T., G. Masse, S.J. Rowland, M. Poulin, C. Michel, and B. LeBlanc, "A novel chemical fossil of palaeo sea ice: IP25", Organic Geochemistry, Volume 38, Issue 1, January 2007, Pages 16-27.


From http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1589

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 12:37 PM

a list of quotes from Art Robinson

I doubt he will win, but it is scary finding that Republicans are putting candidates like this into the spotlight.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 12:29 PM

Here's an example of what we are up against....one of the worst examples, I admit, but if this guy should be elected, he would have a platform to spread his crap under the banner of Congressman.

Art Robinson on TV a few days ago.

Read LOTS more about him in these Google hits, but watch the video first to see what his attituded is.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 11:49 AM

The Traveling Salesmen of Climate Skepticism

A handful of US scientists have made names for themselves by casting doubt on global warming research. In the past, the same people have also downplayed the dangers of passive smoking, acid rain and the ozone hole. In all cases, the tactics are the same: Spread doubt and claim it's too soon to take action.

Article from DER SPIEGEL

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 11:19 PM

Sorry it's so long, but it has beautiful metaphors describing the nonsensical nature of the denialist arguments...

"Suppose a bloke drifts up to you and says, "Apples don't exist"... While your eyebrows are still rising, he adds, "but they grow naturally on trees!"

What?

"Apples don't exist but they grow naturally on trees?" Surely you wouldn't trust that bloke with the lives of your children if their future depended on logical coherence.

Now suppose you walk down the street and some other bloke sidles up and says, "The price of sheep is unknown, but I'd buy some now because they are cheap."

'Scuse me?

The price of sheep is unknown but they are cheap? No point trusting that bloke with your kids' lives either, if their future depended on logical coherence.

Now here's a surprising fact: Your kids' future, and the future of their kids, very much depends on logical coherence—very much hinges on protecting them and their future from the incoherent claims of so-called climate "skeptics."

One of the reliable insights of philosophy of science is that scientific knowledge is virtually never incoherent. In science, a hallmark criterion of whether you can possibly be right is whether or not you are coherent. If you are coherent, you might be right. If you are incoherent or contradict yourself, then you are most likely wrong.

The beauty of this is that you don't even need data or peer-reviewed science to be sure: If an argument is incoherent or mutually contradictory, then you can be fairly confident that it is wrong or stated for entertainment purposes only.

What does this have to do with so-called climate "skeptics?"

Everything.

Because the sum total of so-called "skeptic" arguments is an incoherent muddle of contradictions.

On a Monday morning your resident "skeptic" might tell you that global warming does not exist. On the Monday afternoon, she may tell you that the warming is all natural, just the same way that non-existent apples grow on trees.

Nothing this incoherent can be right.

And on Tuesday, a so-called "skeptic" may drift into town and make claims about the temperature record not being accurate. He might also assure you that there is nothing to worry about because it hasn't been warming in the last 23 days anyhow. So the sheep are cheap but no one knows their price.

Nothing this incoherent can be right.

By Wednesday morning, your excited "skeptic" may have invented the possibility that the sun is causing global warming, and by afternoon tea time it might be cosmic rays, or El Niño, or Inspector Clouseau or whatever.

Now, you may find it hard to believe that anyone could be so muddled, but in fact, it takes little effort to go to a "skeptic" website and dig out dozens if not hundreds such contradictions. Hundreds of instances in which apples were said not to exist but then happily grow on trees. Hundreds of clear indications that this so-called "skepticism" amounts to little more than muddled mutterings.

There is, of course, a coherent alternative. It is the coherent and overwhelmingly supported scientific fact that the Earth's climate is warming and that humans are largely responsible for it. That is coherent, backed by peer-reviewed science, and endorsed by all major scientific organizations in the world."


source text and podcast

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 08:13 PM

The Sun's activity has recently affected the Earth's atmosphere and climate in unexpected ways, according to a new study published today in the journal Nature. The study, by researchers from Imperial College London and the University of Colorado, shows that a decline in the Sun's activity does not always mean that the Earth becomes cooler.

It is well established that the Sun's activity waxes and wanes over an 11-year cycle and that as its activity wanes, the overall amount of radiation reaching the Earth decreases. Today's study looked at the Sun's activity over the period 2004-2007, when it was in a declining part of its 11-year activity cycle.

Although the Sun's activity declined over this period, the new research shows that it may have actually caused the Earth to become warmer. Contrary to expectations, the amount of energy reaching the Earth at visible wavelengths increased rather than decreased as the Sun's activity declined, causing this warming effect.

Following this surprising finding, the researchers behind the study believe it is possible that the inverse is also true and that in periods when the Sun's activity increases, it tends to cool, rather than warm, the Earth. This is based on what is already known about the relationship between the Sun's activity and its total energy output.

Overall solar activity has been increasing over the past century, so the researchers believe it is possible that during this period, the Sun has been contributing a small cooling effect, rather than a small warming effect as had previously been thought.

Professor Joanna Haigh, the lead author of the study who is Head of the Department of Physics and member of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College London, said: "These results are challenging what we thought we knew about the Sun's effect on our climate. However, they only show us a snapshot of the Sun's activity and its behaviour over the three years of our study could be an anomaly.

"We cannot jump to any conclusions based on what we have found during this comparatively short period and we need to carry out further studies to explore the Sun's activity, and the patterns that we have uncovered, on longer timescales. However, if further studies find the same pattern over a longer period of time, this could suggest that we may have overestimated the Sun's role in warming the planet, rather than underestimating it."
Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, the Director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College London, added: "We know that the Earth's climate is affected both by human activity and by natural forces and today's study improves our understanding of how the Sun influences our climate. Studies like this are vital for helping us to create a clear picture of how our climate is changing and through this, to work out how we can best protect our planet."

(PhysOrg)