« Greg Craig has issues he needs to address | Main | Breaking: Bush commutes sentences of Compean and Ramos »

Open Discussion - Global Warming

From the start, I have to say that I am cynical about all the claims made about Global Warming. The short version is that while there is an abundance of noise made about how we must act now to stop Global Warming, all those activists put together have not yet managed to make one compelling presentation using undisiputed evidence to support their claim that Global Warming even exists as a legitimate crisis. So, here's your chance. This is an open thread for you to make your case, show us the proof that

A - Global Warming does in fact exist as a long-term crisis;
B - the risks are in fact global and permanent;
C - that the cause is indisputably man-made;
D - that there are specific actions which we can take which will indisputably address the effects of Global Warming, should it in fact exist.

Here's your chance. Don't blow it.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/34014.

Comments (100)

The only reason global warm... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

The only reason global warming is a legitimate threat is because it was created by a handful of men. These are the same guys that took (stole) Nikola Tesla's genius and turned it into a weapon against humanity. All that stuff imagined only in our dreams and movies really exists and is in the hands of a very sinister minority. If you can ripoff Americans with taxes and charities, you have unlimited access to funds which will be used toward world domination. This video will tell you the real reason we are switching from analogue to digital, and what happened to Tesla's research before the science books were rewritten: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4IZsIB6kqo

I have collected and read h... (Below threshold)
MPR:

I have collected and read hundreds of articles on the subject both pro and con. This is recent and very good. It addresses each issue and it is written by a scientist not a politician.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html

You don't have to believe i... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

You don't have to believe in Global Warming to be against pollution and work towards a healthy environment.

All right, I'll bite on thi... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

All right, I'll bite on this one.

A. Global warming is indeed a long-term occurance, triggered by mankind's invention of agriculture. (See fig. 1 here - Ruddiman's article lays out a very good case for mankind warming the planet enough to stave off a periodic ice age. See figure 9 - we departed from the usual periodic glacial curve about 5000 years ago.)

B. This is a long-term 'crisis' if you count not being hip-deep in snow and cave/polar bears in the southern half of the country and glaciers covering a lot of both hemispheres a problem. It is effectively permanent - on a human life timescale. The risks are - increased areas for agriculture and an increased human population due to fewer deaths from cold.

C. Agriculture increases methane levels in the atmosphere - but the process of warming is also dependent on solar input (and we're currently at a VERY low historic level) and other factors (such as cosmic ray influx) that aren't completely understood. We may be able to measure a lot of things we couldn't a hundred years ago, but we don't really know what's important, what 'normal' levels are, or what effects accrue from departures from those levels, and what reinforces or weakens other factors.

We've got a lot of theory - but we're observing time scales of many, many millenia from a relative aspect of a human lifetime, and just don't have enough information yet.

D. First thing we do is gather more info. The need to "do something right now" may well lead us to do the wrong things. Do you REALLY want to see Canada buried under glaciers?

You don't have to ... (Below threshold)
Baron Von Ottomatic:
You don't have to believe in Global Warming to be against pollution and work towards a healthy environment.

True enough, but CO2 is not pollution. It is an essential building block of life and every part of the food chain relies upon it. More CO2 = more plant growth = a better life for every animal.

"undisiputed evidence</b... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

"undisiputed evidence"

Since when does evidence need to be undisputed for it to be scientifically valid? Some creationists dispute carbon dating; doesn't mean carbon dating isn't accurate and valid.

We are doomed. Why? Global ... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

We are doomed. Why? Global warming is caused by unicorn flatulence which will dramatically increase tomorrow and continue increasing for at least four years.

I'm looking forward to rece... (Below threshold)

I'm looking forward to receiving my unicorn tomorrow, Old Coot. However, pet store workers look at me strangely when I ask them for unicorn feed. I explain that Obama (PBUH) promised everyone a unicorn, but I still get strange looks.

Bump up for you on that, Hy... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Bump up for you on that, Hypie.

They also need to take into account that the theory needs to explain the evidence, and predict future results. The AGW theories of Hansen and others just don't cut it from that point of view. (And there's a lot of speculation that they're cooking the data, so to speak. The GIGO rule applies - you won't get a good output to your models if you put garbage in.)

Just because we can measure something doesn't mean we know what the significance of it is. And if the measurement is flawed...

DSkinner -You have... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

DSkinner -

You have to get it from General Mills. Purina doesn't make it - though I imagine some of their horse chow blends would do the job... if you supplement with rainbow glitter and fairy dust.

Global Warming? It's like ... (Below threshold)
gianiD:

Global Warming? It's like claiming Congressional fiscal responsibility.

It's time to pray for global warming, says Flint Journal columnist John Tomlinson
by John Foren | Flint Journal Editor
Monday January 19, 2009, 4:20 AM

Flint Journal's
John Tomlinson
Read more by him


If you're wondering why North America is starting to resemble nuclear winter, then you missed the news.

At December's U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis. Said climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress, "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?"

I asked myself, why would such obviously smart guy say such a ridiculous thing? But it turns out he's right.

The earth's temperature peaked in 1998. It's been falling ever since; it dropped dramatically in 2007 and got worse in 2008, when temperatures touched 1980 levels.

Meanwhile, the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center released conclusive satellite photos showing that Arctic ice is back to 1979 levels. What's more, measurements of Antarctic ice now show that its accumulation is up 5 percent since 1980.

In other words, during what was supposed to be massive global warming, the biggest chunks of ice on earth grew larger. Just as an aside, do you remember when the hole in the ozone layer was going to melt Antarctica? But don't worry, we're safe now, that was the nineties.

I have collected a... (Below threshold)
Smiles:
I have collected and read hundreds of articles on the subject both pro and con. This is recent and very good. It addresses each issue and it is written by a scientist not a politician.

MPR,

How many of the aricles were in scientific journals that undergo peer review?

Since you have collected all of these articles you are referring to, I challenge you to provide some sample from scientific journals.

FYI:

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Full article

There seems to be a missing... (Below threshold)
jim2:

There seems to be a missing conjunction. Is there an "and" or an "or" missing at the end of the "C" line?

There is more than ample empirical evidence that the planet has warmed in the last century. One need only look at the great majority of the glaciers to see that. The question as to how much, if any or more than minimal, the role of man has been is more open to debate.

A reminder - it is worthles... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

A reminder - it is worthless to simply claim there is evidence. Please provide links to any claims you make.

Not a real impressive presentation in favor of Global Warming so far.

At December's <a href="http... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

At December's U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis.

What I want to know is when will the Nobel committee redeem their honor and take back the prize they gave to Al Gore? Or does only the Olympic committee honor the truth and take back prizes that are fraudulently won.

A study funded by a company... (Below threshold)
Baron Von Ottomatic:

A study funded by a company with an interest in preventing ineffectual carbon rationing legislation is automatically considered invalid?

But a study funded by a government agency with a substantial interest in passing ineffectual carbon rationing legislation is automatically considered valid?

First: carbon dating. This ... (Below threshold)
Tom Johnson:

First: carbon dating. This comes with a caveat: the carbon 14 content of the atmosphere is not constant. Tree ring data has shown variations; these must be used in interpreting age from carbon 14 abundance. There appears to be a periodic variation in the bombardment of the upper atmosphere by those solar particles which change N14 into C14 in the first place.

Second: global warming (anthropocentric): the popular version is false. When James Hansen must modify the data to fit his program, he is no longer involved in science but in a political campaign.
See http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com for details.
The absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide is much smaller than that for water vapor; the manmade contribution to global CO2 is on the order of 3%; the global energy budget for CO2 is not well known.
I mean, specifically, where ALL of the CO2 is to be found: in the oceans, in the seabeds, in existing plant life, below the surface of the ground. Nor is it known what the circulation of the molecule is.
Nor is it known how (even approximately) the surface temperature of the ocean affects CO2 absorption. Ocean plants must have CO2 in order to grow, after all.
It is also difficult to measure the contribution of volcanic activity to atmospheric CO2. Volcanoes are dangerous to be around when venting, and the CO2 disperses quite rapidly.

It is utterly arrogant to believe that, given the massive CO2 emissions from China and India (still burning coal in open pits to cook food and stay warm) we can change the planet by going green.

But the desire to tax is ever with us, so we will soon have a carbon tax. And we will pay. Or go to jail, except for Al Gore, who will be exempt.

I read that the <a href=... (Below threshold)

I read that the presidential inauguration will produce 575 million pounds of carbon dioxide. As Kermit the Frog says, "It ain't easy being green."

The only debate in the scie... (Below threshold)
Smiles:

The only debate in the science community about global warming is about how much and how fast warming will continue as a result of heat-trapping emissions.

Yes, there are some scientist that have written articles saying global warming is not real. However:

1. Lobyist hired by the oil industry pay scientist $10,000 to write articles stating that global warming is not real.

2. Scientific journals that under-go peer review do not print such articles.

Sources must be lacking, Sm... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Sources must be lacking, Smiles/jim 2/hyperbolist can't find even one!

In the lists of failures Bu... (Below threshold)
Allen:

In the lists of failures Bush, they have him failing on "global warming". No president can alter the output of the Sun, so he didn't really fail on that one. More propaganda fueling the hoax that is man-made global warming. I don't know about you, but if record snow fall levels here this year and extreme lows temps are indicative of "global warming" I think that hypocrite Al Gore need to give back that Nobel Prize with his tail between his legs.

Mr. Drummond,You m... (Below threshold)
Herman:

Mr. Drummond,

You may wish to check with Bush's own EPA before you come up with such posts.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html

Another element to consider... (Below threshold)
William:

Another element to consider: What would it cost us to fix, vs. the cost of the projected damage.

If the cost to fix is less than that to adapt to any prospective damage, then adaptation may be the preferred solution (if, in fact, any solution is required)...

This whole discussion is sc... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

This whole discussion is scholastic (University of Paris, circa 1350 scholastic).
But lets look at signs of the times: the Russians were able by surface ship to claim continental shelf area that was once covered in blue ice. Conservative and formerly global warming skeptics, such as the governments of Switzerland and Iceland, have reversed themselves; Iceland due to unwanted bears drifting in on ice flows from Greenland, and because these flows have kept the fishing fleets from going out to follow the cod, etc. Losses to ancient glaciers in both countries DESPITE RELATIVE TEMPERATURE STABILITY has seemed to have swung opinion in favor of the CO2 theorists. Both came kicking and screaming at first. The turnabout in Reykjavik is the most telling and maybe the tipping point. It's the most resistant-to-change of any country in the world unless something is their own idea.

Herman -Not everyt... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Herman -

Not everything the government puts out is reliable, or timely. Heck, all you've got to do is call the IRS with a tax question. THEY won't even stand behind the info they give you, and they wrote the book.

Climate change? Bureaucrats playing CYA. If it doesn't happen, the results will be ignored. If it does, they're covered. The kicker's at the end of the first paragraph... "very likely are influencing the Earth's climate." The info from the IRS phone lines is 'very likely' to be correct also - but they make no bones about not being liable if it isn't.

But hey - I'm a believer in AGW myself. I just don't think it's recent (since it started well over 5000 years back) and I don't think it's a bad thing.

Peer reviewed articl... (Below threshold)
William:


Peer reviewed articles seem to be a big deal for 'Smiles' (above)...

http://www.politicalforum.com/environment-conservation/62870-peer-reviewed-articles-debunk-agw-theory.html

Now, I'm not going to argue that the forum themselves don't have an axe to grind -- but there are a number of peer-reviewed articles to choose from. A couple are even good! :-)

Smiles,Some lobbyi... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Smiles,

Some lobbyist may have hired some scientist to write an anti-AGW article, but there are many more examples of scientists risking their careers to get the word out that AGW is a scam.

Do you dispute that at December's U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis?

As for your second point, it's obviously you don't know what you are talking about. Here are just two of many examples of the studies you say don't exist.

"Anthropogenic global warming bites the dust," declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

New research from Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab concludes that the Earth's climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the IPCC assumes. Accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

Stop drinking Al Gore's Kool-Aid. Otherwise, you are just a useful idiot for the purveyors of the Environmentalist religion.

BryanD,Your inform... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

BryanD,

Your information is out of date. The University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center released conclusive satellite photos showing that Arctic ice is back to 1979 levels. What's more, measurements of Antarctic ice now show that its accumulation is up 5 percent since 1980.

The earth's temperature peaked in 1998. It's been falling ever since; it dropped dramatically in 2007 and got worse in 2008, when temperatures touched 1980 levels.

"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?" - climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress

I am trying to find the lin... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I am trying to find the link, but I read that canadians naturally emit a scent that damages the ozone. ;) ww

DJ: huh? I never said I bel... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

DJ: huh? I never said I believe that the Earth is warming.

I do believe that fossil fuels are not renewable and that we should probably stop setting them on fire; and I do believe that when it comes to matters of the environment, we should err on the side of caution; but I'm not wholly convinced one way or another by Al Gore or by Exxon's hacks. While research and debate continues, we should probably continue to strive to burn as little non-renewable fuel as humanly possible.

Global Warming is nothing m... (Below threshold)
Faith+1:

Global Warming is nothing more than a lot of hot air.

"I read that the president... (Below threshold)
Rance:

"I read that the presidential inauguration will produce 575 million pounds of carbon dioxide."

Even if that number is accurate, what is left out is how much CO2 would be produced by the same people if they weren't at the inauguration.

From that information, there is no way to tell if the event is a net plus or minus.

"I read that the presidenti... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

"I read that the presidential inauguration will produce 575 million pounds of carbon dioxide."

That's because, as it is now, that is the way the world works. Obama is being inaugurated because people want that to CHANGE.

So to point out how much pollution any one Liberal/Democratic/Progressive/Concert/Environmental Group event produces doesn't really say much.


I do believe that ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
I do believe that fossil fuels are not renewable and that we should probably stop setting them on fire;

That's fine, but lets not cripple the world's economies in the process.

and I do believe that when it comes to matters of the environment, we should err on the side of caution

Emerging science indicates we are in for global cooling, which is far more dangerous than global warming. If CO2 is not high enough to stop the cooling we may need to resort to carbon black. That means modifying the scrubbers on our coal fired power plants to produce as much carbon black as possible and then building many more such plants as far north and south as possible. It looks like China is ahead of the game, but they can't save the world on their own.

While research and debate continues, we should probably continue to strive to burn as little non-renewable fuel as humanly possible.

Looks more and more like that's exactly the wrong thing to do. Only when we get the science right will we know what to do about climate change and the only way to get the science right is to keep the politicians out of it. We may need an international treaty to stop scare mongers like Al Gore from poisoning public opinion which junk science.

"BryanD,Your informa... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

"BryanD,
Your information is out of date. The University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center released conclusive satellite photos showing that Arctic ice is back to 1979 levels-mac lorry"

This academic approach is like a slide rule. The 0 can be aligned correctly yet may still yield bad data if the factor is wrong.

I suggest the monitoring practical developments in Iceland. Where the rubber meets the road.

I'm just going to quote wik... (Below threshold)
jmc:

I'm just going to quote wikiapedia.

The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by more than 50 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences,[24] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[25] the American Meteorological Socieotty,[26] the International Union for Quaternary Research,[27] and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations[28][29] explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion.

Basically anyone who doesn't beleive this is proably not too bright.

comments from the not to bright to follow:

Hyper, it always amuses me ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Hyper, it always amuses me when the facts become known, you liberals move the goal posts. "I never said I believe in global warming." Come on libby. You liberals all think alike. ww

Sweet William, move on. Tha... (Below threshold)
max:

Sweet William, move on. Thanks.

jmc - "Basically anyone... (Below threshold)
Marc:

jmc - "Basically anyone who doesn't beleive this is proably not too bright."

Too easy of a target to resist... the same can be said of quotes pulled from wikipedia. Not to mention far too lazy to opine on the subject matter.

'Consensus' is the b... (Below threshold)
William:


'Consensus' is the business of politics, not that of science.

"I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

Let's be clear: ...Consensus is the business of politics. Science, ...requires only one investigator who happens to be right... The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."

~ Michael Crichton

Too easy of a tar... (Below threshold)
jmc:
Too easy of a target to resist... the same can be said of quotes pulled from wikipedia. Not to mention far too lazy to opine on the subject matter.

See all those numbers in what I posted? if you go to the wikipedia page you can click on them and read the references backing up what I posted. I knew that because I'm so much smarter than you.

And so? Much of what is use... (Below threshold)
Marc:

And so? Much of what is used as refs are outdated or debunked.

You wanna talk links, then follow those contained in this very thread that counter what you have posted AND contain more up to date data.

Sorry guy, The Goracle is lossing the battler and opinion is swinging against the GW Religion.

I can and have linked to sc... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

I can and have linked to scientific studies showing AGW as presented by the IPCC is not sound science, but that doesn't penetrate into the thinking of many left-wingers who's herding instincts are more powerful than their intellect. To help them turn away from the cliff the Huffington Post has an article debunking many of the points Al Gore has been feeding them. Being the Huffington Post is "left wing", maybe the left wingers on this blog will accept the fact that the herd is turning and if you want to say with the herd you have to start turning yourself.

I call shenanigans. A bluff... (Below threshold)
Dave W:

I call shenanigans. A bluff, a hoax. Whatever you wanna call it, there's no proof behind any of it.

I declare that if everyone gave me money they would be happy. Prove that it won't work. I dare you. Until you've given me money, the crisis that is your happiness (or lack there of) will not be resolved! So give me money now and you will forever be happy!

Mac Lorry and you expect th... (Below threshold)
Marc:

Mac Lorry and you expect the deniers to accept Huff & Puff regardless of the sites far leftist agenda?

Silly you, your talking the same type that spent years pimping Shillary for pres in '08, but tossed her under the bus when the Messiah came on the scene.

Dave W... channeling Gore a... (Below threshold)
Marc:

Dave W... channeling Gore and his "carbon credit" scheme will get you nowhere.

I've been busy doing things... (Below threshold)
Dave Noble:

I've been busy doing things other than blogging today. But let me try to catch up and join in.

I find it unfortunate that the non-productive catch phrases such as "Goracle," "scam," "goal post," and "debunked have already reared their ugly heads, but here goes:

Jay,

Kudos for stepping out and fielding the ball.

DJ,

I think the gloating is a little premature.

Baron,

The idea that something that is necessary to life cannot be a pollutant is easily refuted upon a moment's reflection. Water is necessary to human life, but human beings who ingest too much water will die of water intoxication. Sunlight is necessary to life, but produces skin cancer in excessive exposures. For the record, the Supreme Court ruled in April 2007 that the EPA can regulate carbon dioxide emissions as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.

It is a fundamental fact that increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases the atmosphere's absorption of heat - the "greenhouse effect."

That's how carbon dioxide causes global warming.

Ice core samples indicate that carbon dioxide levels have risen precipitously since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution with the increased burning of coal, oil and other carboniferous products. Specifically, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the planet has risen from 180 ppm to 280 ppm.

That's how human activity contributes to global warming.

At this point we have established the existence of AGW - Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming

Computer models (used throughout the scientific community) indicate that mean worldwide tempeature will continue to rise unless our carbon emissions are reduced.

Often the argment is over what the precise effects of global warming will be. That argument is often connected to the relative accuracy of the models.

Another issue is to what extent global warming would still occur in the absence of AGW.
The way I look at that is pretty simplistic -
If it's a hot day, you don't build a bonfire.

The vast majority of the human activities that would reduce AGW would also have independent salutary effects:

E.g., Increasing MPG and thereby reducing automobile emissions of CO2 would also 1) reduce consumption of finite fossil fuel; 2) reduce the emission of other pollutants from exhaust pipes.

I just finished installing plastic film on my windows (a stopgap until I purchase new energy efficient windows). Did it help reduce AGW in a small way? Yes. But it will also save me money on my natural gas bill.

Herman's post is very helpful . I would also recommend the following from the American Academy of Sciences:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Mac Lorry and you ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Mac Lorry and you expect the deniers to accept Huff & Puff regardless of the sites far leftist agenda?

Just letting those in the back of the herd know that those in the front of the herd are taking a new direction.

Mac Lorry, some of the prob... (Below threshold)
Marc:

Mac Lorry, some of the problem is who are at the head of the herd.

Many decry the cash pumped into studies that refute AGW, but totally ignore the effects on studies completely, or in part, funded by the worlds government.

Put another way - politicians - and not any way connected to science.

It is a fundamenta... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
It is a fundamental fact that increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases the atmosphere's absorption of heat - the "greenhouse effect."

That effect is dubious at best, but even in it's purest form it only works on a flat earth. Model a spinning globe with a mostly nitrogen and oxygen atmosphere and CO2 causes cooling. Add in water vapor and water particles, and cosmic rays, dust, and sulfur dioxide and no one knows what warming or cooling effect CO2 has.

Ice core samples indicate that carbon dioxide levels have risen precipitously since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution with the increased burning of coal, oil and other carboniferous products. Specifically, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the planet has risen from 180 ppm to 280 ppm.

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age In 1999 the British journal "Nature" published the results of data derived from glacial ice cores collected at the Russia's Vostok station in Antarctica during the 1990s. The Vostok ice core data includes a record of global atmospheric temperatures, atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and airborne particulates starting from 420,000 years ago and continuing through history up to our present time.

The Vostok data graph also shows that changes in global CO2 levels lag behind global temperature changes by about eight hundred years. What that indicates is that global temperatures precede or cause global CO2 changes, and not the reverse. In other words, increasing atmospheric CO2 is not causing global temperature to rise; instead the natural cyclic increase in global temperature is causing global CO2 to rise.

DJ Drummond -I hav... (Below threshold)
jim2:

DJ Drummond -

I have been hiking the US National Parks for over 30 years, and al the glaciers I have seen and revisited have shown marked reductions just in that time. If you want url's, here's one:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080317154235.htm

Even the wiki has some good comparison pix.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

The records of the Grinnel Glacier - the one I have hiked to the most - are prticularly clear:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grinnell_Glacier

You guys can deny it all you want, and I did not assert any particular role level of man, but you seem on weak ground to deny that global warming has happened this last century. Maybe it will reverse with a quieter sun, and maybe not.

No, "weak ground" is not strong enough, anti-global warming troofers might be more apt.

jim2, how about if we agree... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

jim2, how about if we agree the globe goes through cycles in regards to weather. We are in or just out of a warming cycle. ww

Mac Lorry, some of... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Mac Lorry, some of the problem is who are at the head of the herd.

I only know that it's not Al Gore at the head any more. Lots of liberals are impressed by the "scientific consensus" claim Al Gore used to great effect. Of course, scientific consensus is meaningless from a scientific standpoint, but has great political power because many non-scientists defer to the "scientific consensus".

Senator James Inhofe understands this herd mentality and has brilliantly turned it against the IPCC / Gore position. Senator Inhofe compiled a list of dissenting scientists that has grown to over 650 Scientists. In fact, scientists are now asking to be placed on that list knowing that the day of reckoning is coming for the AGW scam.

Some liberals seeing that the "scientific consensus" has changed are now willing to oppose Al Gore's position. The article in the Huffington Post is such an example. I pointed out that article because we have many commentators on this thread who are posting old data and seem unaware that the leaders of the herd they are in have already changed direction.

Dave,How was it de... (Below threshold)
Baron Von Ottomatic:

Dave,

How was it determined that pre-Industrial Revolution concentrations of CO2 were the optimum level, considering - from a geological perspective - current levels are 10-40 times lower than the average concentration over the past billion or so years.

Also, how was it determined that the pre-Industrial Revolution climate was optimum rather than a lingering effect of the last glacial period?

The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are well established facts. Climate changes and correlation does not equal causation. Any attempt to limit carbon emissions is merely a vehicle for bureaucrats to amass wealth and power.

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

You guys can deny ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
You guys can deny it all you want, and I did not assert any particular role level of man, but you seem on weak ground to deny that global warming has happened this last century. Maybe it will reverse with a quieter sun, and maybe not.

I don't think anyone here is denying the global climate warmed in the last quarter of the 20th century, but that warming peaked in 1998. The University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center released conclusive satellite photos showing that Arctic ice is back to 1979 levels. What's more, measurements of Antarctic ice now show that its accumulation is up 5 percent since 1980. We are now in a cooling trend and we have no way of knowing how long it will last nor how cold it will get. Some think we are on the brink of another ice age.

Some environmentalists are now trying to link cooling to CO2, because being able to blame the burning fossil fuels to climate doom is necessary for their political agenda. The best thing we could do would be to declare environmentalism a religion and apply the separation of church and state principle.

Maybe the earth IS warming ... (Below threshold)

Maybe the earth IS warming and is in serious trouble. If so, now is the time to ask the experts some very important questions:

How cool do we want the world to be? What is the ideal temperature for the earth?

What are the criteria for determining the ideal temperature of the earth?

Would a modest increase in the temperature of the planet necessarily be bad? Are there any potential benefits?

How can we ensure that efforts to stabilize the earth's temperature don't backfire, resulting in a larger than intended drop in the earth's average temperature?

At what temperature would the earth be too cold?

Can we be sure that reductions in CO2 emissions will result in a significant and helpful change in temperatures?

What if industrial and automotive CO2 emissions are cut to nearly zero and the earth continues to warm...what do we do then?

How long should humans try to control the world's average temperature?
A. For the next hundred years?
B. For the next thousand years?
C. Forever?

Can we be absolutely confident that global climate changes aren't mostly the result of that giant fireball in the sky, you know, the sun?

Scientists are very good at using statistical analysis to calculate certainty. Approximately how certain are we that we have the correct answers to global warming questions?
A. 50 percent?
B. 80 percent?
C. 95 percent?

Isn't it necessary to answer the questions above before we try to fashion solutions?

http://www.rightklik.net/2008/11/questions-for-global-warming-experts.html

I was interested to find yo... (Below threshold)

I was interested to find your Wizbang blog. 20 years ago I had a book published on different economic concepts to point the way to a sustainable world economy. Someone who liked the book contacted me this year to suggest that I update and re-publish it as a blog. She set up the blog, and the book is now complete on the blog in a series of postings. There are now also additional pieces on global warming and other subjects. Here is the link:

http://www.economicsforaroundearth.com

With all good wishes,
Charles Pierce

Mac,Did you really... (Below threshold)
Dave Noble:

Mac,

Did you really cite "Pravda" as an authoritative scientific source? Right next to your article is a link to Anna Korikova pulling down her pants. That's embarrassing. I mean your behavior, not Anna's.

Please provide a scientifically authoritative source for your challenge to the validity of the "greenhouse effect." Just on a common sense level, I fail to see how a spherical or spinning earth relate to concentrations of carbon dioxide.

Baron,

The Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age are red herrings. The first substantially predated the Industrial Revolution. And the second just barely overlapped it. Your reference to the last billion years of the earth's climate is equally irrelevant to the impact of global warming in the modern world, or even in an earth inhabited by man. Homo erectus emerged in Africa less than two million years ago and the first cities were built a mere 6,000 years ago.

Finally, it's not a matter of identifying some hypothetical ideal global temperature. One of the primary concerns with global warming is the melting of the earth's ice shelves and the resultant increase in sea levels. An increase in sea levels would inundate many heavily populated areas, particularly in the Third World.

But it isn't just cities in the Third World that are threatened by rising sea levels, which in addition to their own direct effects, will exacerbate the effects of the storm surge associated with hurricanes. In 1780, Houston did not exist and New Orleans was a small French colonial settlement. Today they are major population and industrial centers.

"Any attempt to limit carbon emissions is merely a vehicle for bureaucrats to amass wealth and power."

"Some environmentalists are now trying to link cooling to CO2, because being able to blame the burning fossil fuels to climate doom is necessary for their political agenda. The best thing we could do would be to declare environmentalism a religion and apply the separation of church and state principle."

Those comments are unsupported conclusions that have nothing to do with science and everything to do with the authors' political opinions.

CORRECTION: At the outset of the Industrial Revolution CO2 concentrations were 280 ppm. In the mid ninety-nineties they were 360 ppm.

The Greenhouse Fffect:... (Below threshold)
Dave Noble:

The Greenhouse Fffect:

"The amount of heat energy added to the atmosphere by the greenhouse effect is controlled by the concentration of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere. All of the major greenhouse gases have increased in concentration since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (about 1700 AD). As a result of these higher concentrations, scientists predict that the greenhouse effect will be enhanced and the Earth's climate will become warmer. Predicting the amount of warming is accomplished by computer modeling.
Computer models suggest that a doubling of the concentration of *the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide*, may raise the average global temperature between 1 and 3° Celsius. However, the numeric equations of computer models do not accurately simulate the effects of a number of possible negative feedbacks. For example, many of the models cannot properly simulate the negative effects that increased cloud cover would have on the radiation balance of a warmer Earth. Increasing the Earth's temperature would cause the oceans to evaporate greater amounts of water, causing the atmosphere to become cloudier. These extra clouds would then reflect a greater proportion of the Sun's energy back to space reducing the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the atmosphere and the Earth's surface. With less solar energy being absorbed at the surface, the effects of an enhanced greenhouse effect may be counteracted.

A number of gases are involved in the human caused enhancement of the greenhouse effect (see Table 7h-1 below). These gases include: carbon dioxide (CO2); methane (CH4); nitrous oxide (N2O); chlorofluorocarbons (CFxClx); and tropospheric ozone (O3). Of these gases, the single most important gas is carbon dioxide which accounts for about 55% of the change in the intensity of the Earth's greenhouse effect. The contributions of the other gases are 25% for chlorofluorocarbons, 15% for methane, and 5% for nitrous oxide. Ozone's contribution to the enhancement of greenhouse effect is still yet to be quantified.

http://www.physicalgeography.net/home.html

This whole GLOBAL WARMING i... (Below threshold)
Spurwing Plover:

This whole GLOBAL WARMING is a fruad and a hoax its a all time lie being used by dirty lying unscruolous persons like AL GORE and those sinister green groups lying journalists and evil men like AL GORE,DAVID SUZUKI,MUARICE STRONG and the sinister CFR

"There is no such thing as ... (Below threshold)
Dave Noble:

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."

That is just simply wrong as a practical matter. Brief reflection will reveal the problem with Michael Crichton's categorical statement.

Were he right, the mere existence of one or more scientists who disagreed with a scientific theory would invalidate that theory.
There always have been, are now, and always will be scientists who dispute a given scientific theory. There are creationist/intelligent design scientists who dispute the theory of evolution. That does not invalidate the theory of evolution.

Michael Crichton, RIP, was a surgeon, not a climatologist. Accordingly, his opinion on AGW is that of a highly intelligent and extremely well-educated layman. But the opinion of a layman, nonetheless. Modern science is of necessity highly specialized. The days of the Renaissance man didn't last much past the Renaissance.

Those climatologists who dissent from the scientific consensus on AGW represented by the IPCC findings and the recorded conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences, the Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society, have access to peer-reviewed journals to challenge that consensus. That's the way science works.

It doesn't work by circulating petitions or signing on to Senate Minority Reports.

And the one thing that certainly has no bearing whatsoever on scientific validity is a poll of American voters:

"Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters now say long-term planetary trends are the cause of global warming, compared to 41% who blame it on human activity."

Here's a little story from ... (Below threshold)
evenhand:

Here's a little story from the Media Research Center:

GMA's Sam Champion Uses Freezing Cold
to Tout Global Warming

On Thursday's Good Morning America, weatherman and global warming alarmist Sam Champion slipped some reassuring words about the validity of climate change into his report on the bone chilling temperatures hitting much of the country.

After admitting that NASA had declared 2008 to be the coldest year since 2000, he added: "But they [NASA] caution this was caused in part by a cooling La Nina in the pacific and warn global warming is still playing an important part in our changing climate."

(In other words, weather is what played a part in this climactic phenom)

Champion then played a clip of a NASA climate scientist and global warming proponent Gavin Schmidt admonishing:

"And, so, it's a little bit difficult to talk about global warming when you're going to have the coldest day of the year. But you have to realize that weather isn't abolished just because there's a long-term trend in the climate." (That's a hoot)

The liberal weatherman faced a similar problem on April 6, 2007. On that day, he delivered this brutal weather report:

"But it's a shot of cold air and it's opened the door for arctic air all the way through the nation. Call it about two thirds of the nation getting this push of arctic cold. This is normally a December, mid-December pattern. As this cold air goes, look at the shades of blue in just about all areas."

And, of course, this is the same ABC personality who once hosted a segment that fretted about "billions" dying from climate change.

A transcript of the brief mention of global warming on the January 15 show, which aired at 7:04am, follows:

SAM CHAMPION: It feels like the coldest winter in years. And a report from NASA climate scientists says 2008 was the coolest year since 2000. But they caution this was caused in part by a cooling La Nina in the pacific and warn global warming is still playing an important part in our changing climate.

GAVIN SCHMIDT (Climate Scientist, NASA Goddard Inst. For Space Studies):

"And, so, it's a little bit difficult to talk about global warming when you're going to have the coldest day of the year. But you have to realize that weather isn't abolished just because there's a long-term trend in the climate."

-- Brent Baker

Spurwing, that was so good,... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Spurwing, that was so good, I had to blockquote the whole thing:

This whole GLOBAL WARMING is a fruad and a hoax its a all time lie being used by dirty lying unscruolous persons like AL GORE and those sinister green groups lying journalists and evil men like AL GORE,DAVID SUZUKI,MUARICE STRONG and the sinister CFR

"The CFR is the promotional arm of the Ruling Elite in the United States of America. Most influential politicians, academics and media personalities are members, and it uses its influence to infiltrate the New World Order into American life. Its' "experts" write scholarly pieces to be used in decision making, the academics expound on the wisdom of a united world, and the media members disseminate the message.

To understand how the most influential people in America came to be members of an organization working purposefully for the overthrow of the Constitution and American sovereignty, we have to go back at least to the early 1900's, though the story begins much earlier (depending on your viewpoint and beliefs).

That a ruling power elite does indeed control the U.S. government behind the scenes has been attested to by many americans in a position to know. Felix Frankfurter, Justice of the Supreme Court (1939-1962), said: "The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes." In a letter to an associate dated November 21, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt wrote, "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson." February 23, 1954,"
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Council_Foreign_Relations.htm

Don't think for a moment that these guys care about the environment. They have been messing with the ionosphere ever since they got hold of Tesla's scalar waves and have been trying to sell the idea that it is the fault of the American people. They have no interest in our welfare whatsoever.

Did you really cit... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Did you really cite "Pravda" as an authoritative scientific source? Right next to your article is a link to Anna Korikova pulling down her pants. That's embarrassing. I mean your behavior, not Anna's.

I see, you don't think Russia has any real scientists becasue the web site has some ads on it. Unlike you, I have actually linked to published scientific studies.

Please provide a scientifically authoritative source for your challenge to the validity of the "greenhouse effect." Just on a common sense level, I fail to see how a spherical or spinning earth relate to concentrations of carbon dioxide.

CO2 introduced into a rotating sphere with a nitrogen oxygen atmosphere creates a shifting emissivity that causes cooling, but even that more realistic model is simplistic compared to the complex system that is the Earth. In post #27 I provide two links to published studies that counter the IPCC's claims.

The Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age are red herrings. The first substantially predated the Industrial Revolution. And the second just barely overlapped it.

The relevance is that both warming and cooling occurred while atmospheric CO2 was much lower than today. Same for the Roman warm period when wine was being produced in England. Thus, CO2 could not be that cause of these climate changes, thus, there's no reason to believe CO2 is the cause of the 20th century warming.

Finally, it's not a matter of identifying some hypothetical ideal global temperature. One of the primary concerns with global warming is the melting of the earth's ice shelves and the resultant increase in sea levels.

Satellite data shows the increase in sea levels leveled off in 2005, which corresponds our current global cooling trend.

Those comments are unsupported conclusions that have nothing to do with science and everything to do with the authors' political opinions.

I can say the same about your posts. At least I have provided links to many articles and several scientific studies.

The Greenhouse Fff... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
The Greenhouse Fffect:

"The amount of heat energy added to the atmosphere by the greenhouse effect is controlled by the concentration of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere.

The studies I linked in post #27 demonstrate the greenhouse effect is not as great as the IPCC has said. The paper "Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics" raises some questions about the physics of the Greenhouse Effect, which is a misnomer. This paper is not a peer reviewed study and I don't say that it's correct in it's main thesis, but it's packed with interesting physics, math and references if you're interested in that sort of thing.

Those climatologis... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Those climatologists who dissent from the scientific consensus on AGW represented by the IPCC findings and the recorded conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences, the Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society, have access to peer-reviewed journals to challenge that consensus. That's the way science works.

The IPCC's fourth report was written by 52 scientists, not hundreds. The leadership of National Academy of Sciences, the Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society made statements in support of the IPCC, but the membership never voted on that position. In many cases, the leadership of these organizations are not even scientists.

It doesn't work by circulating petitions or signing on to Senate Minority Reports.

But it does and has worked because the funding of science is political and without funding there's no science. Over 650 prominent scientists signing in dissent of the AGW position sends a strong political message that it's ok for scientists to speak out against AGW. The IPCC and Al Gore have tried to stifle scientific debate, but because of the Senate Minority Report, they have lost that battle and lost control of the funding. More and more scientists are asking to be included on the Senate Minority Report's list of dissenting scientists in order to distance themselves from the purveyors of the AGW scam.

What's the future plans on... (Below threshold)
maggie:

What's the future plans on saving the world when the sun burns out?
Of course by then man will have found a way
to depopulate the world of his species, saving
Gaia. Or so they assume.

Dave,The MWP and L... (Below threshold)
Baron Von Ottomatic:

Dave,

The MWP and LIA are not red herrings, they represent significant changes in global temperatures that occurred during a period of stable - i.e. not influenced by human action - CO2 concentrations. We can therefore surmise that natural forces independent of CO2 are capable of climate forcing. What we are then left with is a couple of hundred years of CO2 and temperature measurements that don't even correlate particularly well.
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M

Water vapor contributes ~95% of the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere. If CO2 contributes 55% of the change in the intensity of the Earth's greenhouse effect (omitting water vapor), then (.55 * .05) = .0275 (2.75%) of forcing capability. 380ppm (current) - 280ppm (pre-IR) = 100ppm added by humans, 100ppm/380ppm = .263 (26.3%) human contribution to CO2 concentration. Co2 forcing .0275 * human CO2 contribution .263 = .0072 (.72%) anthropogenic CO2 forcing on climate.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

The above link actually attributes .28% of the greenhouse effect to human activity factoring in CFCs, methane, and N2O. Either way, less than 1% of potential human effect on climate through greenhouse gas concentration.

Computer models are useful tools but have no predictive capability beyond a week or so into the future. How many models predicted global temperatures would decline in 2007 and 2008? I wouldn't bet money of a computer simulation of the NFL on the 2010 Super Bowl champion, nor am I willing to wager $trillions on computer simulations of a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system like the Earth's climate.

Unsupported conclusions that have nothing to do with science are the norm in the climate debate. "The science is settled, we must act now" is an unsupported political opinion. Science is rarely ever settled. There are folks at the Hadron Collider hoping to disprove theories pretty well accepted in the world of physics. If they disprove those theories will they be called deniers by those who have built their record of scholarship on the existing tenets of physics? Probably, but it doesn't mean they aren't correct.

And this is fun, how "global warming" all began:
http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

Do you REALLY want to se... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Do you REALLY want to see Canada buried under glaciers?

Do you REALLY want an answer to that leading question? ;)

Frankly, the whole notion o... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Frankly, the whole notion of "global" warming is silly. A "globe" is a spheroid atlast representing a planet. Correctly, this should have been called "planetary" warming.

Frankly, I don't care if my "globe" gets a little warm or not.

I would, however, like my planet to heat up a little bit...the plants love it!

Am I providing any links nay or yea on this issue? No, I'm enjoying reading the debate, but I've heard this doom and gloom back in 1973 when we were all going to freeze to death from a new global ice age.

Now, we've gone from "global" warming, to "global" cooling, to now "climate change"...aka, "weather", and it happens four times a year in my part of the globe, er, planet.

Re: Crichton's "consenus sc... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Re: Crichton's "consenus science" argument.

He's absolutely right. You can have a consenus until you are blue in the face, but all it takes is one person to disprove the hypothesis, and you established scientific fact. And AGW is a hypothesis at best.

Consenus was the earth was the centre of the universe/solar system, Copernicus proved otherwise.

Consensus was outer space was composed of a unknown substance called "aether". Then came the team of Michelson-Morley.

Baron,Of course, f... (Below threshold)
Dave Noble:

Baron,

Of course, factors other than human activity effect climate change. Prior to the Industrial Activity, human activity had no appreciable effect on climate change. Domestic bovine flatuence aside.

Please see below. Mac this will address your Pravda reference re: lag of CO2 effects. You did not cite to a scientific article. You cited to a Pravda writer who cited to a scientific article. Interesting that you don't trust the MSM in democratic America but you trust the MSM in fascist Russia.

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2007/10/common-climate-misconceptions-co2-as-a-feedback-and-forcing-in-the-climate-system/

More to follow.

Do you REALLY want to se... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Do you REALLY want to see Canada buried under glaciers?

Do you REALLY want an answer to that leading question? ;)

Hey, man, don't go hatin' on Canada! It's not THEIR fault their main exports are hockey and Zambonis!

Dave,Mac ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Dave,

Mac this will address your Pravda reference re: lag of CO2 effects. You did not cite to a scientific article. You cited to a Pravda writer who cited to a scientific article.

And your link is also to an article, not a study. In post #27 I linked to two peer reviewed and published studies. In post #65 I linked to a scientific paper. When you have linked to as many real studies and papers then you can complain about my links, until then you just look silly.

Interesting that you don't trust the MSM in democratic America but you trust the MSM in fascist Russia.

Just as in your link in post #72, the Pravda article cites scientific studies. You complain about the source of the citation as if that discredits the scientific studies, but you forget Russia beat the U.S. into space and they have produced many renowned scientists who produce world class science. Your trying to discredit Russian science is ill-informed at best.

Anyone think maybe the ... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

Anyone think maybe the The Sun could have an affect on Climate?

Hyper
BTW you do know that Carbon 14

Congratulations, Allen - it... (Below threshold)
BPG:

Congratulations, Allen - it only took 20 comments for you to troll out the anti-Bush stuff. I thought the conversation was about global warming?

I'll support this with nothing, but I believe that as the science is far from settled that the matter requires years of further study by scientists WITHOUT a vested interest in which way the studying takes them.

The current "Algore" arrangement is analogous to the New York Times reporting on the Democratic Party.

Mac, you have made quite a ... (Below threshold)
jmc:

Mac, you have made quite a few flat out wrong assertions.

I don't think anyone here is denying the global climate warmed in the last quarter of the 20th century, but that warming peaked in 1998.

Actually Mac, the warmest year on record is 2005. This by itself defeats your notion that the earth is cooling. 2007 is tied with 1998 for seoncd place. The earth is NOT cooling.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20060124

650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis.

Wow, only 11,000 scientist signed a petition condemning the Bush administration's stance on climate science. on the 650 number, all I could find was quotations of this on conservative blogs. do you have reputable link?


Your information is out of date. The University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center released conclusive satellite photos showing that Arctic ice is back to 1979 levels.

From U.S news and world report December 16 2008.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2008/12/16/arctic-ice-melting-at-alarming-pace-as-temperatures-rise.html

NASA scientists will reveal that more than 2 trillion tons of land ice on Greenland and Alaska, along with in Antarctica, have melted since 2003. Satellite measurements suggest half of the loss has come from Greenland. Melting of land ice slowly raises sea levels.

The World Meteorological Organization, a United Nations agency, is also reporting that ice volume in the Arctic this year fell to its lowest recorded level to date.

Mac, your postion is fanatical and defies reason.


The current and undisputed ... (Below threshold)
Kathy:

The current and undisputed problem with anthropogenesis of 'global warming' is that while carbon dioxide emissions have increased dramatically over the last ten years, glaciers have grown and temperatures have fallen. That is an inverse proportion not a correlation. Period.

It cannot be dismissed by extending the trend and saying "ten years is not an adequate time sample". Either CO2 rises are matched by temperature increases or they are not.

They are not.

CO2 increases have always followed the trend of warming - which makes sense since a warm planet is more conducive to biological species which produce it. AGW turns science on its head. The pretzlizing of the scientific brain.

Now that would be an interesting study...

From Powerline blog - a gre... (Below threshold)
Kathy:

From Powerline blog - a great quote:

Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan:

CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another. ... Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so.

Powerline
#1) Anyone who cites Wikipe... (Below threshold)
steve m:

#1) Anyone who cites Wikipedia will flunk - from all of my professors at university of mass. Wikipedia is an opinion site, not a source of facts. Who are you going to believe, Wikipedia, or your lying eyes?

Is the world better off hot or cold? Who gets to pick that temperature? What if I'm not happy with the "chosen" temperature?

Manipulating a trace gas for trace results is peeing in the wind, it might make you warm all over, but will have no lasting affect, The sun drives the weather, always has, always will.

Let's take a poll, shall we... (Below threshold)
steve m:

Let's take a poll, shall we?
1) A nice toasty warm planet, with a year-round growing season, no snow shoveling, shorts, tee-shirts and sandals for a wardrobe.

2) Snow and ice year-round, fuel + food shortages/riots over same, water locked-up in glaciers, bundled up in five layers of clothing and never getting warm. (kind of like what us northern folks have to deal with every 6 months)

Tough decision, huh? Given a choice, it will be warming, Every Time!

Actually Mac, the ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Actually Mac, the warmest year on record is 2005. This by itself defeats your notion that the earth is cooling. 2007 is tied with 1998 for seoncd place. The earth is NOT cooling.

Actually jmc, the figures from NASA are in dispute. James Hansen is NASA when it comes to their published temperature data. You can go ahead and drink Hansen's Kool-Aid like others in the herd, or you can engage your brain and consider the evidence now coming from many renowned scientists. For example, take a look at what Hansen's adjustments do to the official NASA temperature record. He turned a cooling trend into a warming trend.

on the 650 number, all I could find was quotations of this on conservative blogs. do you have reputable link?

The link is in post #15. If you want to claim John Tomlinson made it up then say so clearly rather than making the cowardly claim that nothing on a conservative blog can be trusted.

NASA scientists will reveal that more than 2 trillion tons of land ice on Greenland and Alaska, along with in Antarctica, have melted since 2003. Satellite measurements suggest half of the loss has come from Greenland. Melting of land ice slowly raises sea levels.

And the ice has been building since 2005 again as can be seen by the halt in the rise of sea levels. See link in post #64.

The World Meteorological Organization, a United Nations agency, is also reporting that ice volume in the Arctic this year fell to its lowest recorded level to date.

How about a link? Often such data is several years old. Here is a graph of the Current Arctic Basin Sea Ice Area, which is only days old. Being there is no old ice in the Arctic, it seems ice area is a good indication of ice volume.

Mac, your postion is fanatical and defies reason.

Not at all. My postion is that of the Majority of climate scientists. Not the stale politically correct Kool-Aid you seem to be drinking.

Mac,Look again. Y... (Below threshold)
Dave Noble:

Mac,

Look again. You linked to one study twice. I have seen that study before. Do you guys have like only one study that gets passed around from conservative blog to conservative blog.

Now let's look at that one study, which astronomer according Dr. Ian Wilson reveals that "Anthropogenic global warming bites the dust"

Before discussing the study, I note that it's astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson. Dr. Wilson is not a climatologist. In the highly specialized world of modern science, which I addressed in another post, it's hard enough for a scientist to stay current in his own field, might as well other fields. It's not like the blogosphere where everyone thinks because they have a keyboard and a reasonable command of the English language that they can opine authoritatively on any subject.

"Effectively, this (new study) means that the global economy will spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of (about) 1.0 K by 2100 A.D.," Wilson wrote in a note to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Sunday.

http://www.medialine.com/ubb/NonCGI/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=008719

So Dr. Wilson replies to his handlers telling them what he knows they want to hear.

Turns out that in addition to reporting to the U.S. Senate, Dr. Wilson also likes to blog:

http://inel.wordpress.com/2007/07/04/no-solar-hiding-place-for-greenhouse-sceptics/

He's a busy fellow. Makes you wonder how he has any time to pursue his chosen field of study, astronomy, might as well keep up with cutting edge research in a field in which he is not trained.

Now, more importantly, let's look at the study itself. In his introduction, Mr. Schwartz indicates that he will use his findings about the index of climate sensitivity to "draw inferences about climate over the twentieth century." He does this in the last sentence of the study:

"The estimated increase in GMST {Global Mean Surface Temperature} by well mixed greenhouses gases {interesting choice of terms by a scientist, since you claim that the "greenhouse effect" is "dubious at best." } from preindustrial times to the present, 0.7 (+/-) 0.3 K; the upper range of this approaches the threshold of 'dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate,' which is considered to be in the range of 1 to 2K [O'Neill and Oppenheimer, 2002, Hansen, 2004]{Did you see that second name? Why would he cite a "debunked" bought- off scientist?}

And to show that I'm reading this correctly, notice how it corresponds to Dr. Wilson's report to the Senate Committee:

"Effectively, this (new study) means that the global economy will spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of (about) *1.0 K by 2100 A.D.,"*

But in fact, Dr. Schwartz says that based on his findings, GMST could rise by 1.0 K from preindustrial times "to the present," not the end of the century as Dr. Wilson reports.

Finally, in passing, your other "paper" is, as you admitted previously, not peer-reviewed. The truth of the matter is neither you nor I know anything about it. It could be someone's master thesis for all we know. What lends it any authority whatsoever?

CO2 is a trace element with... (Below threshold)

CO2 is a trace element with zero effect on temperature. But the real proof against the global warming religion is the cultist nature of it proponents. Their "evidence" is fraudulent at best, their "study results" are tweaked to match their desired outcomes, and even the name of the threat changes to accommodate disproving events. Remember, it's not "Global Warming" any more; it's "Climate Change."

What a joke.

Dave Noble,<blockquot... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Dave Noble,

Before discussing the study, I note that it's astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson. Dr. Wilson is not a climatologist.

Certainly you are not qualified to discuss any study if you don't understand that astronomy is central to the study of climate. Are You so far out of touch with current science that you think the Sun and Earth's orbit and wobble are not part of climate? As for the rest of your discussion about Stephen Schwartz's study, well you focused on Dr. Wilson, and not Schwartz. You also missed the significance of the study itself, which shows that the value of warming given by the IPCC is too high by a factor of three. Remember this is a peer reviewed published study, so it's assumed correct until some qualified scientist publishes proof otherwise. That leaves you out.

To make up for my double linking to the same study before, here's a 2006 study entitled Extending Greenland temperature records into the late 18th century, which concluded: "The warmest year in the extended Greenland temperature record is 1941, while the 1930s and 1940s are the warmest decades." Obviously, CO2 can't be the cause as it was much lower 70 years ago than today.

Finally, in passing, your other "paper" is, as you admitted previously, not peer-reviewed.

But if you would have taken the time to look at it you would have found that it cited peer reviewed papers that long ago disproved the green house effect had anything to do with "so called" green house gases. The mechanism by which CO2 is said to warm the Earth has never been proven experimentally. Maybe you should take another look at it and this time try reading it.

Mac,I don't have t... (Below threshold)
Dave Noble:

Mac,

I don't have time to review your ill-chosen cites. I did that in detail with the Schwartz article. You obviously did not read it. I am a layman, but I can read an abstract, an introductionn and a conclusion.

If you don't bother to read your cites, why should I? When I was a kid I had a fight with another kid named Bernard. I ended up sitting on top of him with my knees on his shoulders. He said "Let me up." When I refused to, he said I was afraid to, so being kid I let him up. I few short moments later we were back in the same position. Guess what he said?

I'm not going to let you up, Mac. See you on another issue.

Actually jmc, the... (Below threshold)
jmc:
Actually jmc, the figures from NASA are in dispute. James Hansen is NASA when it comes to their published temperature data. You can go ahead and drink Hansen's Kool-Aid like others in the herd, or you can engage your brain and consider the evidence now coming from many renowned scientists.

And the idea of cooling is in serious dispute. Why don't you leave the crazy outliers and check out the data from the some of the most renoowned scientist in the field of climate change.

For example, take a look at what Hansen's adjustments do to the official NASA temperature record. He turned a cooling trend into a warming trend.

The flaw you menton had a mean effected of about 0.15°C, and later, and 5 year mean for 1999 and later. basicaly the adjustment you mention changed nothing.

on the 650 number, all I could find was quotations of this on conservative blogs. do you have reputable link? The link is in post #15. If you want to claim John Tomlinson made it up then say so clearly rather than making the cowardly claim that nothing on a conservative blog can be trusted.

I claimed no one made anyhting up, I said when I googled I couldn't find a source other than blogs. None of the blogs I looked at showed a link to the cliam. I will review your link.

How about a link? Often such data is several years old. Here is a graph of the Current Arctic Basin Sea Ice Area, which is only days old. Being there is no old ice in the Arctic, it seems ice area is a good indication of ice volume.

I provided a linke from U.S news Dec 2008. I'd say that is a pretty recent link.


Not at all. My postion is that of the Majority of climate scientists. Not the stale politically correct Kool-Aid you seem to be drinking.

Mac, the notion that youtr position is the opinon of the majority of scientist is laughable. you mentioned 650, you may have noticed I refered to a letter signed by 11,000 scinetist to the Bush administration on the subject. You may also have noticed that EVERY SINGLE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE in the western world has endorsed the idea that global warming is real and man made. I'm sorry, you better off making the case, that just because you are in the extreme minority doesn't mean you are wrong, because you most certainly not in line with what 99% of climate scinetist beleive on this subject.


Wow jmc, you put your arrog... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Wow jmc, you put your arrogant claim in all caps, and in bold too. I guess that has to be true, even if you did not bother to include a single citation or link to support it.

[/sarcasm]

Wow jmc, you put ... (Below threshold)
jmc:
Wow jmc, you put your arrogant claim in all caps, and in bold too. I guess that has to be true, even if you did not bother to include a single citation or link to support it.


Yes DJ, oftentimes I make the mistake of assuming people are as smart as me. For instance in the past I have said our nation was founded in 1776, without a link to back that up. I have also stated to some, that Abe lincoln was the 16th president, without a shred of proof handy. And, I have stated that every national academy of science in the west has endorsed the idea that global warming is real. without a citation.... Other than the one I mention in post #36.

And before I hear the typical crying refrain of " that's wikipedia." you might look at their webpage where they link to copies of the joint statement.

Of course some people are to lazy to to that themselves. Tell them Lincoln was president of the U.S. and they demand you go to the library, and get them a book to prove it, instead of doing the incredibly easy task of looking it up themselves. Such people are often just rigid dogmatics, determined to avoid knowledge at all costs. Often times, they will call something that is statment of fact, and therefore verifiable an "arrogant claim." Maybe you know such a person DJ.

Dave Noble,<blockquot... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Dave Noble,

I'm not going to let you up, Mac. See you on another issue.

Being you didn't even know the importance of astronomy in the science of climate change it's obviously to all that you never were on top. Real scientist looked at the study you admit you only read the abstract of and underscored it's importance in showing the IPCC's figures are off by a factor of thee. Yes, it's best you run away.

Why don't you lea... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Why don't you leave the crazy outliers and check out the data from the some of the most renoowned scientist in the field of climate change.

That's good advice. You should take it.

The flaw you menton had a mean effected of about 0.15°C, and later, and 5 year mean for 1999 and later. basicaly the adjustment you mention changed nothing.

You better take another look. It changed the sign of the change. Hansen's adjustments changed a cooling trend in the data to a warming trend. Not only that, but the raw data itself is biased toward warming because, with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1990, data from Siberia is no longer being collected. When you remove the temperature records from some of the coldest place on Earth it biases the data toward warming. Even with that biase, the raw data still shows a cooling trend.

Hansen is also very secretive or at least uncooperative in revealing the source code for the program he uses to adjust the data. That reluctance to openly share data and methods with other scientists is antithetical to real science, and this from a government employee.

As for the NASA reports that supposedly show a drastic loss of Greenland ice, well if that were true you should see an increase in the rate of sea levels that's just the opposite of what satellite data shows. See link in post #64. I also

Mac, the notion that youtr position is the opinon of the majority of scientist is laughable. you mentioned 650, you may have noticed I refered to a letter signed by 11,000 scinetist to the Bush administration on the subject.

Well there have been petitions opposing the IPCC's AGW view with over 13,000 signatures, but it like your letter signed by 11,000 scientists, it's questionable how many have first hand knowledge of climate change. The IPCC's forth report was done by just 52 scientists. The senate minority report has over 650 scientists on it's list and many of them are former IPCC reviewers or contributors. Other's on the senate minority report's list are currently active in climate research, and some Nobel prize winners. They are all named along with title and credentials and many have extensive bibliographies with links to there work. Take a look.

You may also have noticed that EVERY SINGLE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE in the western world has endorsed the idea that global warming is real and man made.

This has long been debunked. Only the leadership of these organizations are on record, not the members. In many cases the administrative executives issuing the statement are not even scientists. It's just another consensus gimmick.

I'm sorry, you better off making the case, that just because you are in the extreme minority doesn't mean you are wrong, because you most certainly not in line with what 99% of climate scinetist beleive on this subject.

If you take the time to look at the senate minority report's list you will see it's now just the opposite of what you thought. Only a minority believe the IPCC's report is correct.

Jmc,Ok, it wasn't ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Jmc,

Ok, it wasn't 13,000 as I said in post #91, it's 31,000 Scientists Debunk Al Gore and Global Warming.

New derivation of equations governing the greenhouse effect reveals "runaway warming" impossible. You'll see that Miklós Zágoni's paper supports the work done by Steven Schwartz, which I linked to before.

I have been an "Ex... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
I have been an "Expert Reviewer" for the IPCC right from the start and I have submitted a very large number of comments on their drafts. It has recently been revealed that I submitted 1,898 comments on the Final Draft of the current Report. Over the period I have made an intensive study of the data and procedures used by IPCC contributors throughout their whole study range. I have a large library of reprints, books and comments and have published many comments of my own in published papers, a book, and in my occasional newsletter, the current number being 157.

I began with a belief in scientific ethics, that scientists would answer queries honestly, that scientific argument would take place purely on the basis of facts, logic and established scientific and mathematical principles.

Right from the beginning I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely. .

Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organisation from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only "reform" I could envisage, would be its abolition. - Dr Vincent Gray

More here.

trying to post again withou... (Below threshold)
jmc:

trying to post again without so many links to see if it gets through.


Mac, it's one bizarre claim after another.

I think you need to start reading scientific journals and stay away from conservative blogs as your source of science.

First off, your 31000, number is again laughable, since only 9,000 of them are real scientist. also given the deniers habit of misquoting and often putting on the their lists names of scientist who don't concur with their belief, or even angrily demand to be pulled off of it, I will only consider these claims if you can find reputable news sources and not conservative blogs. Otherwise I'll just start linking to dailykos for my sources.

Oh and is still a minority if you you are poling the percentages of scientist who believe or disbelieve.

In 2007, survey 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence substantiates the occurrence of human-induced greenhouse warming"; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/04/23/survey-tracks-scientists-growing-climate-concern.html


Now from Climate Science:

Here is a list of "enviro-Nazis" and "left-wing loonies" who believe that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real and well supported by sound science:


Links to left wing loons who think global warming is real:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) -

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) -

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) -

State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) -

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

The Royal Society of the UK (RS) -

American Geophysical Union

American Meteorological Society

American Institute of Physics (AIP) -

National Center for Atmospheric Research

American Meteorological Society (AMS)

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) -

That's one hell of a conspiracy you've got going their mac, damn I'm convinced. Countries
that can't even agree on a system of measurement, wars in Iraq, or just about anything else thought it was important enough to form one of the most massive conspiracies in history to make money for big green. that makes a lot of sense.


Now on to your silly claim that Hansen's data is wrong. First off, nothing you have mentioned seems to be in the data you are showing, where do you see this, because I'm pretty sure you are just making it up. Secondly the World meteorological organization has come up with similar numbers, with 2007 very slightly below 1998 but above 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004. Also 4 of the five hottest years on record according the WMO happen after 1998. Basically, that's one heckuva a cooling trend. I'll be getting my parka out today.

Also another piece of evidence of a vast left wing conspiracy. I mean, first NASA and now the WMO.. Wow is all I can say.

I think you need t... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
I think you need to start reading scientific journals and stay away from conservative blogs as your source of science.

I've linked to more published peer reviewed studies than you or anyone on this thread. You don't like what those studies say so you ignore them as if they don't exist. You are the one living in a fantasy world.

First off, your 31000, number is again laughable, since only 9,000 of them are real scientist.

I only posted that link to offset your claim of 11,000. Whatever you say about the list of 31,000 I linked to can be said about the 11,000 you claim. The 650 on the list I linked is another story.

In 2007, survey 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence substantiates the occurrence of human-induced greenhouse warming"; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger.

Unlike the poles often cited, A survey of over 3,000 randomly selected voters who were at Bush's Midland TX speech yesterday found that 98% approved of Bush's job performance over the past 8 years and 84% agreed that the democrats caused the current financial crisis. Funny thing about randomly selecting people who show up at a political event or who belong to various organizations. Such surveys make good propaganda, but other than that they don't have much value.

First off, nothing you have mentioned seems to be in the data you are showing, where do you see this, because I'm pretty sure you are just making it up.

Apparently you don't know how to follow links or do you think I made up the graphs, studies, and articles I have linked to? Talk about silly.

Now on to your silly claim that Hansen's data is wrong.

Nothing silly about it. In fact, Hansen had to change is data when Steve McIntyre found obvious errors in it. Steve McIntyre is one of the researches who debunked Mann's hockey stick graph that was prominent in the IPCC's third assessment. By the time McIntyre got done the IPCC didn't even use it in their fourth assessment. It's McIntyre who has shown that Hansen's adjustments create an artificial warming bias.

Secondly the World meteorological organization has come up with similar numbers, with 2007 very slightly below 1998 but above 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004. Also 4 of the five hottest years on record according the WMO happen after 1998.

You keep looking at the "adjusted" data and saying there's no evidence to show the adjusted data has been adjusted. I could link to more studies and papers showing the temperature data is corrupted, but you don't read any of them. Well. here's a site with lots of pictures showing why the temperature data is corrupt. I like the one showing the trash burning barrel 5 feet from the thermometer. I suppose you think I made all these up too.

As for the conspiracy, read this paper starting on page 4 if you dare. And no, I didn't write it.

A surve... (Below threshold)
jmc:

A survey of over 3,000 randomly selected voters who were at Bush's Midland TX speech yesterday found that 98% approved of Bush's job performance over the past 8 years and 84% agreed that the democrats caused the current financial crisis. Funny thing about randomly selecting people who show up at a political event or who belong to various organizations. Such surveys make good propaganda, but other than that they don't have much value.

It seems your reasoning is that my sample was to narrow here is a larger one. Now do you have anyhting ni the way of proof backing up your sily claim that global warming skeptics are in the majority?

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at the University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 80% agreed that humans significantly influence the global climate. Ninety-seven percent of climatologists who are active in climate research believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and that human activity is significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.


Apparently you don't know how to follow links or do you think I made up the graphs, studies, and articles I have linked to? Talk about silly. >/blockquote>

Whern I click on your link It takes me to the web page I provided you, regardgin Hanson which shows 2005 as the hottest year on record. None of the graphs I saw (on my link) provided any inconsistency. which do you refer to, silly?

Nothing silly about it. In fact, Hansen had to change is data when Steve McIntyre found obvious errors in it.

Yes there is because the incionsitency was not statiscally significant. Hanson has addressed this lie numerous times.

You keep looking at the "adjusted" data and saying there's no evidence to show the adjusted data has been adjusted.

You have unsuccefully claim hanson's data was inaccurate, you have in no way addressed the fact the WMO's which is differnet is.

I could link to more studies and papers showing the temperature data is corrupted, but you don't read any of them. Well. here's a site with lots of pictures showing why the temperature data is corrupt. I like the one showing the trash burning barrel 5 feet from the thermometer. I suppose you think I made all these up too.

No, my favorite was the average temparture in Lodi CA. That really disproves Global warming, I mean if the temperature is dropping in Lodi... I need to go laugh for a while.

Well, you never addressed the fact 11 of the warmest records have been in the last 13 years.
that is according to,

World Meteorological Organization (WMO)

data which is based on research by

Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office, and the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, UK,

The other dataset is maintained by the US Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which indicated that 2007 is likely to be the fifth warmest on record.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm


That is one heckuva conspiracy you got going Mac. Everyone is in on it.


It seems your reas... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
It seems your reasoning is that my sample was to narrow here is a larger one. Now do you have anyhting ni the way of proof backing up your sily claim that global warming skeptics are in the majority?

What's silly is that you keep asking for links and then you ignore them. Better stick your head in the sand again because here's another link. Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at the University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from

Yes, I've seen that one. It's much like the poll taken at Midland Texas yesterday that shows Bush has a 98% approval rating.

None of the graphs I saw (on my link) provided any inconsistency. which do you refer to, silly?

From post #82 "take a look at what Hansen's adjustments do to the official NASA temperature record. He turned a cooling trend into a warming trend." Hansen's adjustments changed the sign of the trend from cooling to warming. As I have said before, McIntyre has shown that Hansen's adjustments create an artificial warming bias.

Yes there is because the incionsitency was not statiscally significant. Hanson has addressed this lie numerous times.

The lie is that it wasn't significant. It chaged the warmest year in the U.S. back to 1936. Hanson has tried to downplay the importance of his error, but McIntyre has demonstrated that, given the number of weather stations in the U.S. vs. the number in the rest of the world, the change on the global average is much larger than Hanson admits. You can bet against McIntyre if you like, but both Hanson and Mann have found him to be more than a match.

You have unsuccefully claim hanson's data was inaccurate, you have in no way addressed the fact the WMO's which is differnet is.

The source of the data is the same including NOAA. The source itself has a false warming trend because of urbanization and the loss of the data from Siberia after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1990, which I linked to many post ago.

No, my favorite was the average temparture in Lodi CA. That really disproves Global warming, I mean if the temperature is dropping in Lodi... I need to go laugh for a while.

The site I linked has surveyed 60% of the USHCN weather stations from which much the temperature data you cite is derived. The survey shows that 57% of the stations are out of compliance and have an error of at least +2 C. Another 12% have errors of at least +5 C. These urbanized sites fully account of all the observed warming in the U.S. and there's no reason to belive that stations in other nations are any better. It's the old garbage in garbage out principle, but instead of coming to grips with reality you stick your head in the sand and LOL. Now that's silly.

What's ... (Below threshold)
jmc:


What's silly is that you keep asking for links and then you ignore them. Better stick your head in the sand again because here's another link. Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

Wow, a history teacher did a survey, and a conservative blog operating from the beleif that global warming is a hoax published it. that's compelling.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at the University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 's Yes, I've seen that one. It's much like the poll taken at Midland Texas yesterday that shows Bush has a 98% approval rating.
Uh no. You see here is the difference. One was taken at Bush's farewell speech. Where presumably the people there are Bush supporters. The otherwas randomized and taken across the earth. Get it? One more time: Bush rally, planet earth. Big diff.

None of the graphs I saw (on my link) provided any inconsistency. which do you refer to, silly?

It chaged the warmest year in the U.S. back to 1936. Hanson has tried to downplay the importance of his error, but McIntyre has demonstrated that, given the number of weather stations in the U.S. vs. the number in the rest of the world, the change on the global average is much larger than Hanson admits. You can bet against McIntyre if you like, but both Hanson and Mann have found him to be more than a match.

Data before the adjustment shows, 1998 (1.24 ºC anomaly just beating out 1934 (1.23 ºC) for the top US year, it now just misses: 1934 1.25ºC vs. 1998 1.23ºC. None of these differences are statistically significant and none of them changed the data of last 10 regarding the hottest years on record.


The site I linked has surveyed 60% of the USHCN weather stations from which much the temperature data you cite it

that data comes from Anthony Watts, who let's face it is a denyer. Which is fine, but he has not shown that his data is giving measurable differences to temperatures, or ii) they are imparting a bias (and not just random errors) into the overall dataset.

The survey shows that 57% of the stations are out of compliance and have an error of at least +2 C. Another 12% have errors of at least +5 C. These urbanized sites fully account of all the observed warming in the U.S. and there's no reason to belive that stations in other ntions are any better. It's the old garbage in garbage out principle, but instead of coming to grips with reality you stick your head in the sand and LOL. Now that's silly.

To arbitrarily exclude any source of information simply because it is not perfect is foolish - understanding is only going to come from using as many different independent lines of evidence as possible. There are plenty of additional lines of evidence that suggest the large scale gridded products are consistent with what we can see in other measures, and so there is no need to throw out the baby with the bath-water, in fact your need to do so is well...silly :)

Wow, a history tea... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Wow, a history teacher did a survey, and a conservative blog operating from the beleif that global warming is a hoax published it. that's compelling.

See, I knew you couldn't actually read such a report. You only got to the first paragraph and misunderstood that you were reading about the 2004 survey which supported the consensus view (Al Gore's view), and so you dismissed it on the basis that the author was a history professor. If you would have actually read a bit further you would have seen that Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte updated that research in 2007 using the same technique and found that there's a changing viewpoints that represents advances in climate science over the past decade. There is no consensus in published studies that human's cause global warming.

Uh no. You see here is the difference. One was taken at Bush's farewell speech. Where presumably the people there are Bush supporters. The otherwas randomized and taken across the earth. Get it? One more time: Bush rally, planet earth. Big diff.

The poll is meaningless as can be seen from the survey of published studies. Science moves forware on the basis of published work and that's why the survey you failed to read trumps polls and lists of organizations.

None of the graphs I saw (on my link) provided any inconsistency. which do you refer to, silly?

But of course if you only look at your own links you won't see any inconsistency, silly.

Data before the adjustment shows, 1998 (1.24 ºC anomaly just beating out 1934 (1.23 ºC) for the top US year, it now just misses: 1934 1.25ºC vs. 1998 1.23ºC. None of these differences are statistically significant and none of them changed the data of last 10 regarding the hottest years on record.

I guess you don't understand the difference between raw data and processed data. The links I supplied show that the raw data itself contains a false warming trend. The processing algorithm has also been shown to create a false warming trend. The records you keep referring to are meaningless and have no correlation with reality. Throwing out the urbanized sites the raw data shows a cooling trend in the last half of the 20th century, which is the most accurate record we have.

that data comes from Anthony Watts, who let's face it is a denyer. Which is fine, but he has not shown that his data is giving measurable differences to temperatures, or ii) they are imparting a bias (and not just random errors) into the overall dataset.

Anthony Watts is running a scientifically valid survey of USHCN weather stations complete with maps, photos, and historical records of each station, but you are so drunk on Al Gore's Kool-Aid you dismiss what your lying eyes show you by calling him a denier. The survey is being done by USHCN rules, which you think are unimportant.

To arbitrarily exclude any source of information simply because it is not perfect is foolish - understanding is only going to come from using as many different independent lines of evidence as possible.

What's foolish is to pretend the raw data has not been corrupted with a significant warming bias. An yes, tests have been done that show these violations cause a warming bias in the recorded temperature. I like the test that shows the change in temperature when they start the jet engine on the aircraft next to the weather station. Guess what, the temperature goes up. Same for when the burning barrel is in use, or when they leave the unauthorized incandescent light on, or when the air conditioner near the thermometer is being used. There's the source of your global warming.

There are plenty of additional lines of evidence that suggest the large scale gridded products are consistent with what we can see in other measures...

Not so. In fact satellite data shows the warmest year was 1998 and the earth has been in a cooling trend for the last decade.

"At December's U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis. Said climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress, "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?"

Are you going to claim climatologist Dr. David Gee didn't say this or are you going to just call him a denier along with the other 650 other scientists who stood up and said "man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis."?

The Earth may well have been warming up to 1998, but it had nothing to do with CO2. If man is not causing climate change, then it's a huge misuse of resources to try and control it. Far better to use those resources to adjust to the natural changes in climate that have gone on through all of Earth's history. To do otherwise would not only be silly, it would be stupid.

<a href="http://network.nat... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Our spotless sun

"It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age." - Philip Chapman, a former NASA astronaut-scientist and former president of the National Space Society


Read the sunspots

"The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change - and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling" - R. Timothy Patterson is professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University


New Jason Satellite Indicates 23-Year Global Cooling

"The new Jason oceanographic satellite shows that 2007 was a "cool" La Nina year--but Jason also says something more important is at work: The much larger and more persistent Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has turned into its cool phase, telling us to expect moderately lower global temperatures until 2030 or so." - Dennis T. Avery, is a senior fellow with the Hudson Institute in Washington




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy