457 replies to this topic

[mike250]

http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

"Warm winds are rapidly melting and breaking up the ice over the Beaufort Sea, and Amundsen's historic Northwest Passage is on the point of opening up"

Edited by mike250, 12 August 2008 - 01:25 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

Evidence of Antarctic warming is now on a par with the rest of the world. Also Wilkins Ice Shelf is about to go, the section holding it to the mainland is only a few hundred meters across now.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/7843186.stm


The west of Antarctica is warming faster than the east, according to the new analysis, as this representation shows.

New evidence on Antarctic warming

By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website

The continent of Antarctica is warming up in step with the rest of the world, according to a new analysis. Scientists say data from satellites and weather stations indicate a warming of about 0.6C over the last 50 years.

Writing in the journal Nature, they say the trend is "difficult to explain" without the effect of rising greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere.
Meanwhile, scientists in Antarctica say a major ice shelf is about to break away from the continent.

The Wilkins Ice Shelf is said to be "hanging by a thread" from the Antarctic Peninsula, the strip of land pointing from the white continent towards the southern tip of South America.(excerpt)

Video: http://news.bbc.co.u...ech/7843170.stm

[Lazarus Long]

2008 has turned out to be the coolest since 2000. The stats coming in do demonstrate a cooling trend for the moment. Before those that consistently hang their hat on any such information start crying the end of global warming please recognize that the overall trend has not reversed and a down year or two does not a trend make. Climate stats forma wave, look at the graphs in the previous post for example to see what I mean. There are always down years and the issue is the trend over long periods of time.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/7786060.stm

This year is coolest since 2000

By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website

The world in 2008 has been cooler than at any time since the turn of the century, scientists say.

Cooling La Nina conditions in the Pacific brought temperatures down to levels last seen in the year 2000.
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) notes that temperatures remained about 0.3C above the 1961-1990 average.
Computer models suggest that natural cycles may cool the Earth's surface in the next few years, masking the warming impact of rising greenhouse gas levels.

One recent analysis suggested there may be no warming for about the next decade, though other scientists dispute the conclusion.
What is beyond dispute is that 2008 saw temperatures a shade below preceding years.

Using data from two major monitoring networks, one co-ordinated by the UK's Hadley Centre and University of East Anglia (UEA) and the other by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), the WMO reports that despite the cooling, 2008 still ranks among the 10 warmest years on record.

At 14.3C, the average temperature for the year was significantly above the 14.0C average for the 1961-1990 period, a commonly used baseline.

Temperatures are about 0.7C above pre-industrial times. (excerpt)

[Lazarus Long]

Case in point, even though 2008 was cooler the retreat of arctic ice is accelerating. In fact is is actually retreating faster than the models suggest it should.


Arctic sea ice is currently being lost even faster than the models predict

Audio commentary

http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/7786910.stm
Changes 'amplify Arctic warming'

By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News

Scientists say they now have unambiguous evidence that the warming in the Arctic is accelerating.

Computer models have long predicted that decreasing sea ice should amplify temperature changes in the northern polar region.
Julienne Stroeve, from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, told a meeting of the American Geophysical Union that this process was under way.

Arctic ice cover in summer has seen rapid retreat in recent years. The minimum extents reached in 2007 and 2008 were the smallest recorded in the satellite age.

"The sea ice is entering a new state where the ice cover has become so thin that no matter what happens during the summer in terms of temperature or circulation patterns, you're still going to have very low ice conditions," she told the meeting.

Autumn return Theory predicts that as ice is lost in the Arctic, more of the ocean's surface will be exposed to solar radiation and will warm up.
When the autumn comes and the Sun goes down on the Arctic, that warmth should be released back into the atmosphere, delaying the fall in air temperatures.

Ultimately, this feedback process should result in Arctic temperatures rising faster than the global mean.
Dr Stroeve and colleagues have now analysed Arctic autumn (September, October, November) air temperatures for the period 2004-2008 and compared them to the long term average (1979 to 2008).
The results, they believe, are evidence of the predicted amplification effect.

"You see this large warming over the Arctic ocean of around 3C in these last four years compared to the long-term mean," explained Dr Stroeve. "You see some smaller areas where you have temperature warming of maybe 5C; and this warming is directly located over those areas where we've lost all the ice."

Wider changes If this process continues, it will extend the melting season for Arctic ice, delaying the onset of winter freezing and weakening further the whole system.

These warming effects are not just restricted to the ocean, Dr Stroeve said. Circulation patterns could then move the warmth over land areas, she added. "The Arctic is really the air conditioner of the Northern Hemisphere, and as you lose that sea ice you change that air conditioner; and the rest of the system has to respond.

"You start affecting the temperature gradient between the Arctic and equator which affects atmospheric patterns and precipitation patterns.
"Exactly how this is going to play out, we really don't know yet. Our research is in its infancy."
The study reported by Dr Stroeve will be published in the journal Cryosphere shortly.

Jonathan.Amos-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

[gattaca]

I am convinced that it is too late to remedy this situation, that the fatal blow has already been struck, and that there will be an inevitable, large and sudden change in climate, resulting in megadeath tolls in the thousands. It may be a good way to take our species to its next stage of evolution, though I doubt I, or my children will get to see it.

[Mind]

I am convinced that it is too late to remedy this situation, that the fatal blow has already been struck, and that there will be an inevitable, large and sudden change in climate, resulting in megadeath tolls in the thousands. It may be a good way to take our species to its next stage of evolution, though I doubt I, or my children will get to see it.

I am not so pessimistic. If CO2 is the primary cause, well then, there are already known methods of taking CO2 out of the air, not to mention what we might invent a couple years from now. We can just take the CO2 out of the air. Won't be cheap, but it can be done.

[niner]

I am convinced that it is too late to remedy this situation, that the fatal blow has already been struck, and that there will be an inevitable, large and sudden change in climate, resulting in megadeath tolls in the thousands. It may be a good way to take our species to its next stage of evolution, though I doubt I, or my children will get to see it.

I am not so pessimistic. If CO2 is the primary cause, well then, there are already known methods of taking CO2 out of the air, not to mention what we might invent a couple years from now. We can just take the CO2 out of the air. Won't be cheap, but it can be done.

Or put SO2 into the upper atmosphere to reflect sunlight. This has the advantage of being pretty cheap and pretty well understood, since volcanoes have been doing it forever and we have a good understanding of what they do to the climate. There are fixes available to us if things really start getting bad quickly. The more likely scenario is that things just get somewhat bad, and we don't do much. Like Mind, I'm also not pessimistic.

[valkyrie_ice]

I am convinced that it is too late to remedy this situation, that the fatal blow has already been struck, and that there will be an inevitable, large and sudden change in climate, resulting in megadeath tolls in the thousands. It may be a good way to take our species to its next stage of evolution, though I doubt I, or my children will get to see it.

I am not so pessimistic. If CO2 is the primary cause, well then, there are already known methods of taking CO2 out of the air, not to mention what we might invent a couple years from now. We can just take the CO2 out of the air. Won't be cheap, but it can be done.

Or put SO2 into the upper atmosphere to reflect sunlight. This has the advantage of being pretty cheap and pretty well understood, since volcanoes have been doing it forever and we have a good understanding of what they do to the climate. There are fixes available to us if things really start getting bad quickly. The more likely scenario is that things just get somewhat bad, and we don't do much. Like Mind, I'm also not pessimistic.

Too be honest, since I don't think man has much at all to do with global heating and cooling trends, as I am certain the electromagnetic interplay between the earth the sun and the other planets controls such processes, or why would both Mars and Saturn be experiencing warming trends simultaneously with Earth, I don't really think there is much we can do about it one way or another, except cope, adapt and move on.

I also think we're going to eventually unfreeze Antarctica anyway for archeological purposes.

Edited by valkyrie_ice, 24 September 2009 - 04:02 AM.

[thestuffjunky]

Please do keep in mind that YES, us humans have taken the trees away and replaced it with CO2 emissions factories thus speeding the CO2 production by 10000s fold. Now also remember, MAN has only been keeping track(documenting) the weather for what maybe 200yrs out of the 4.5 billion this rock has been around. And also, a key factor in "global warming" is the earths axis being on 23.5deg and makes a axis rotation every ~26,500~ yrs. the current angle is facing the sun and causing more radiation into an already frail ozone at the poles. OH, dont forget about the galactic alignment in 2012.....

i can be found live at

[niner]

Too be honest, since I don't think man has much at all to do with global heating and cooling trends, as I am certain the electromagnetic interplay between the earth the sun and the other planets controls such processes, or why would both Mars and Saturn be experiencing warming trends simultaneously with Earth, I don't really think there is much we can do about it one way or another, except cope, adapt and move on.

Well, that's a minority view. I would only point out that Mars and Saturn are so tremendously different in the nature of their atmosphere compared to Earth that I don't think comparisons of warming trends mean very much. On Earth, we have climate records that go back centuries in the form of e.g. ice and sediment cores, but our records of Mars/Saturn temperatures are far shorter, probably only a handful of decades.

[JLL]

Keep in mind that immortalists represent the minority view in many aspects.

[niner]

Keep in mind that immortalists represent the minority view in many aspects.

Not that many aspects, really. We consider the scientific evidence, and conclude that there are no laws of physics that prevent life extension. I'm not sure that's a minority view among biogerontologists, though it might be. When a view is in the extreme minority among people who are knowledgeable in the field, there is a pretty good chance that it's wrong. A pretty good chance, but not a 100% chance. Sometimes people who are knowledgeable in the field haven't seen the evidence that we've seen. Other times they understand something that we have missed, or misinterpreted.

[thestuffjunky]

Keep in mind that immortalists represent the minority view in many aspects.

Not that many aspects, really. We consider the scientific evidence, and conclude that there are no laws of physics that prevent life extension. I'm not sure that's a minority view among biogerontologists, though it might be. When a view is in the extreme minority among people who are knowledgeable in the field, there is a pretty good chance that it's wrong. A pretty good chance, but not a 100% chance. Sometimes people who are knowledgeable in the field haven't seen the evidence that we've seen. Other times they understand something that we have missed, or misinterpreted.

Well, I find myself as an eclectic minority! just being human and that of LIFE here this universe.... WE ARE ALL MINORITIES... Aside of that, i am a very open-minded intellectual individual and this can be backed IF you guys come to my channel and stick around for a comment or 2... and as for being wrong, if the conclusion was always 100% correct, then we would be a whole different species... MAN will always be wrong and LIFE is a mutated collection of dust, gas and liquid...

[valkyrie_ice]

*sigh* so which of the various 2012 theories do you subscribe to? The one where the galactic alignment will cause a pole reversal and destroy most of the world (which according to some people has been averted due to a cease of using stargates and looking glass time viewers) or the one where the Annunnki return and wipe out us uppity slave race for daring to rebel against them in the distant past before planet x went out of the solar system, or the one where the alignment unlocks all human potential and we self destruct like the Krell from Forbidden Planet, or the one where Aliens invade and enslave us, or where the reptile men from another dimension finally assume control and reveal were just food cattle, or the one where the sunspot cycle will spit out a huge coronal burst and fry all electronics on the earth and drive us into the stone age again?

In my opinion, the exact same thing will happen at 11:11 am 12 21 2012 as happened at 12:01am 01 01 2000.

Nothing.

As for the sun controlling our Global temperatures, I'm a subscriber to the Electric Universe theory, so all of Mans contributions only adds to things, but is not the primary cause.

[thestuffjunky]

*sigh* so which of the various 2012 theories do you subscribe to? The one where the galactic alignment will cause a pole reversal and destroy most of the world (which according to some people has been averted due to a cease of using stargates and looking glass time viewers) or the one where the Annunnki return and wipe out us uppity slave race for daring to rebel against them in the distant past before planet x went out of the solar system, or the one where the alignment unlocks all human potential and we self destruct like the Krell from Forbidden Planet, or the one where Aliens invade and enslave us, or where the reptile men from another dimension finally assume control and reveal were just food cattle, or the one where the sunspot cycle will spit out a huge coronal burst and fry all electronics on the earth and drive us into the stone age again?

In my opinion, the exact same thing will happen at 11:11 am 12 21 2012 as happened at 12:01am 01 01 2000.

Nothing.

As for the sun controlling our Global temperatures, I'm a subscriber to the Electric Universe theory, so all of Mans contributions only adds to things, but is not the primary cause.

Well, again, I am an open minded science based fanatic. I dont adhere to any one for none have happened yet. The exopolitics of the 2012 is interesting to a point. Then again, a simple sci-fi theory comes about because civilizations managed to right about the same thing. Now, according by galactic standards, the solar system changes in space all the time and to think that IF we are the only lifeforms out there, what an unfortunate way to go... Im not to pressed on it... I have enjoyed my existance so far, cant argue with the forces of the universe.....

please join me at http://www.imminst.o...o...c=31794&hl=

[Sillewater]

Here's something worth thinking about:

More Disreputable “Science” From The AGW Alarmist Crowd

Last week I pointed to the fact that the “scientist” who provided much of the basis for the AGW crowd’s alarmist appeal (as incorporated in the UN’s 2007 IPCC report) refused to provide the original data on which that model was based to peers. He later claimed that the original data had been lost because it was unable to be transferred to newer data storage (an unmitigated crock). IOW, peers can’t review his data and check out his theory to ensure what he’s theorizing has a valid basis in fact. That’s a cardinal sin in real science circles.

And now, in less than a week, a second cardinal sin is uncovered. That of cherry-picking data. In the cross-hairs is Keith Briffa. Steve McIntyre explains the problem:

The Briffa temperature graphs have been widely cited as evidence by the IPCC, yet it appears they were based on a very carefully selected set of data, so select, that the shape of the graph would have been totally transformed if the rest of the data had been included.

In fact, as with Phil Jones who I reported about last week, Briffa refused repeated requests for his original data (from tree rings). And it was the Briffa graphs which were used to support the contention that the “hockey stick” was valid.

When others finally got a hold of all the data and graphed it out, their findings were quite different than Briffa’s:





And, of course, when they were merged they told quite a different story than was Briffa and the IPCC:




My, what a difference using all the data makes, no?

Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts have all the gory details, but as one commenter on Watt’s site says:

Coming just after the “lost” data from the Hadley Centre by Phil Jones, this is beginning to look more than just carelessness.

I call it the “great unraveling”. The hoax is coming unglued. And this shameful conduct will set real science back 100 years.

The question is, will the politicians see it before it is too late? Will the administration which promised that science would again take the forefront actually keep its word and ensure that happens? Methinks we’re going to find out that a political agenda and ideology are much more powerful than science. Science, quite honestly, is only useful to politicians – any politician – as long as it advances their agenda. If it doesn’t then the politician will claim it to be false science – regardless of how overwhelming the evidence is to the contrary.

~McQ

[JLL]

Oh you crazy IPCC guys... you really crack me up!

http://www.timesonli...icle6991177.ece

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

[platypus]

Oh you crazy IPCC guys... you really crack me up!

http://www.timesonli...icle6991177.ece

Well yeah but did you check the IPCC AR4 for the discussion about glaciers in Asia and the references? Almost all glaciers in the world are in retreat with a few exceptions. Especially Greenland and Antarctica are losing mass in an accelerated way and people are worried that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) will destabilise in the future giving humanity +3 meters of sea level rise quite quickly.

[maxwatt]

Oh you crazy IPCC guys... you really crack me up!

http://www.timesonli...icle6991177.ece

Well yeah but did you check the IPCC AR4 for the discussion about glaciers in Asia and the references? Almost all glaciers in the world are in retreat with a few exceptions. Especially Greenland and Antarctica are losing mass in an accelerated way and people are worried that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) will destabilise in the future giving humanity +3 meters of sea level rise quite quickly.

...over a hundred year period. But I suppose that makes it alright.

[JLL]

UN climate panel blunders again over Himalayan glaciers

The IPCC had warned that climate change was likely to melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 - an idea considered ludicrous by most glaciologists. Last week a humbled IPCC retracted that claim and corrected its report.

Since then, however, The Sunday Times has discovered that the same bogus claim has been cited in grant applications for TERI.

One of them, announced earlier this month just before the scandal broke, resulted in a £310,000 grant from Carnegie.

[niner]

Since then, however, The Sunday Times has discovered that the same bogus claim has been cited in grant applications for TERI.

One of them, announced earlier this month just before the scandal broke, resulted in a £310,000 grant from Carnegie.

The implication here is that the grant was the result of the bogus claim. That is unlikely.

[valkyrie_ice]

Since then, however, The Sunday Times has discovered that the same bogus claim has been cited in grant applications for TERI.

One of them, announced earlier this month just before the scandal broke, resulted in a £310,000 grant from Carnegie.

The implication here is that the grant was the result of the bogus claim. That is unlikely.

*sigh* the point you are missing here Niner is that more and more of these exaggerated claims are coming to light, only to be excused repeatedly by true believers.

Science is not ADVOCACY. Science is finding the facts. As more and more advocacy comes to light, and more and more of this "science" is proven to be wildly inaccurate and overhyped, it undermines the validity of ALL science, not just that of climatology.

Do you really relish the thought of funding cut to life extension research because the public has decided that all science is a scam? That's where this is headed so long as the mounting evidence is continually denied by the climate change believers.

This is a mockery of the scientific method. Defending it by denial of the evidence of chicanery is a pure and simple refusal to face a reality you don't want to believe.

And the thing you really don't seem to get is that this is neo-ludditism pure and simple. It's an agenda to suppress technological development. And the big point I think you are missing is that it's not really even about climate science per se so much as it is climate science has been usurped by a neo-luddite movement which has used it as a front man for a larger anti-technological movement. And I've been watching this movement from a long time before climate change became an issue. I can remember it way back when Hydrochlorofloracarbons (or however the damn word is spelled) was the big huge threat depleting the Ozone and we were all gonna die from virulent sunburn.

Is climate changing, yes. Sorry to say, IT DOES THAT. At NO POINT IN HISTORY has earth's climate stayed the same for more than a few hundred years. SHIFT HAPPENS.

[niner]

Since then, however, The Sunday Times has discovered that the same bogus claim has been cited in grant applications for TERI.

One of them, announced earlier this month just before the scandal broke, resulted in a £310,000 grant from Carnegie.

The implication here is that the grant was the result of the bogus claim. That is unlikely.

*sigh* the point you are missing here Niner is that more and more of these exaggerated claims are coming to light, only to be excused repeatedly by true believers.

Science is not ADVOCACY. Science is finding the facts. As more and more advocacy comes to light, and more and more of this "science" is proven to be wildly inaccurate and overhyped, it undermines the validity of ALL science, not just that of climatology.

Do you really relish the thought of funding cut to life extension research because the public has decided that all science is a scam? That's where this is headed so long as the mounting evidence is continually denied by the climate change believers.

This is a mockery of the scientific method. Defending it by denial of the evidence of chicanery is a pure and simple refusal to face a reality you don't want to believe.

And the thing you really don't seem to get is that this is neo-ludditism pure and simple. It's an agenda to suppress technological development. And the big point I think you are missing is that it's not really even about climate science per se so much as it is climate science has been usurped by a neo-luddite movement which has used it as a front man for a larger anti-technological movement. And I've been watching this movement from a long time before climate change became an issue. I can remember it way back when Hydrochlorofloracarbons (or however the damn word is spelled) was the big huge threat depleting the Ozone and we were all gonna die from virulent sunburn.

I sure seem to be missing a lot of points considering that I didn't defend, deny, or excuse anything. What you're asking us to accept is that a mountain of evidence and clean science be dismissed because, as far as I've heard in this case, one guy put a sloppy/erroneous claim at best, or lie at worst into his section of a very large report. I'm in full and complete agreement with everyone who thinks this should not have happened and the guy or guys(?) responsible should be disciplined. Where I diverge from some of you is that I don't think that this event or the previous tempest in a teapot are sufficient cause to dismiss all of the good science that has been done.

You bring up the threat of ozone depletion due to CFCs as though it was "another trumped up danger" or something. That was a problem that was real, and the entire world got together, enacted the Montreal Protocol, and ceased all manufacture and use of an entire class of chemicals. The ozone problem is getting better now, because we acted. It is thought that the ozone hole will be healed by 2050. That's a success story, not another example of chicken little-ism. It's an interesting comparison study, though. Here are a couple paragraphs on it cribbed from Wikipedia:

But the Rowland-Molina hypothesis was strongly disputed by representatives of the aerosol and halocarbon industries. The chair of the board of DuPont was quoted as saying that ozone depletion theory is "a science fiction tale...a load of rubbish...utter nonsense". Robert Abplanalp, the president of Precision Valve Corporation (and inventor of the first practical aerosol spray can valve), wrote to the Chancellor of UC Irvine to complain about Rowland's public statements (Roan, p. 56.)

and

But the CFC industry did not give up that easily. As late as 1986, the Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy (an association representing the CFC industry founded by DuPont) was still arguing that the science was too uncertain to justify any action. In 1987, DuPont testified before the US Congress that "we believe that there is no immediate crisis that demands unilateral regulation."[citation needed]

Sounds like the fossil fuel industry, doesn't it?

[valkyrie_ice]

I sure seem to be missing a lot of points considering that I didn't defend, deny, or excuse anything. What you're asking us to accept is that a mountain of evidence and clean science be dismissed because, as far as I've heard in this case, one guy put a sloppy/erroneous claim at best, or lie at worst into his section of a very large report. I'm in full and complete agreement with everyone who thinks this should not have happened and the guy or guys(?) responsible should be disciplined. Where I diverge from some of you is that I don't think that this event or the previous tempest in a teapot are sufficient cause to dismiss all of the good science that has been done.

*sigh* you still don't get it. There IS SUFFICIENT CAUSE to seek verification of all data when it has become evident that an as yet unknown amount of the source data is in question. And it is not "one guy" it's is the ORIGINAL SOURCE of the entire global warming theory which has been compromised, and this was simply one more example of the data being compromised from a completely different source. As such, it throws the entire subject into doubt whether you want to accept that or not.

I'm not dismissing anything, Niner. I am demanding that the entirety of the evidence be re-examined to determine WHAT is good and bad, then eliminating the bad. That's not being done though is it? Rather than actually re-examine the issue, follow proper scientific method, publish open and verifiable data, and PROVE THE CASE PROPERLY, all we're getting is a "yeah, well that part was bad, but ignore it."

That is not, and never has been, acceptable "science" for any other field, so WHY IS IT FOR CLIMATOLOGY??? Passing this off as "science" undermines everything science stands for, and makes it just another religion. The only thing that makes science better than religion is it's insistence on absolute PROOF. The moment proof becomes optional, it becomes just another belief system. And one single point of bad data can indeed invalidate an entire theory. That's what makes it SCIENCE. The TRUTH has to outweigh any amount of belief. Epicycles had centuries of evidence behind it for it's correctness. It still was invalid.

And that is the point that seems to be constantly ignored in favor of defending the faith.

So for the record, let me make this completely and utterly plain. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN ANYTHING. I judge probabilities of correctness based on evidence. The "Evidence" you keep thinking is so convincing is matched by evidence just as convincing that the opposite is true. The fact that you want one set of evidence to be accepted and the other dismissed is NOT MY PROBLEM.

And before you start with the whole "motive" bs, remember climate scientists stand to lose BILLIONS in funding if they are proven wrong. There's motive on both sides, and agendas everywhere. And not one single bit of any of it has to do with "science".

And for the record, lest you think I'm mad again, I'm not. I am simply pointing out what I see as a bias in your thinking. You are willing to provide some data with a preferential status based on personal beliefs.

You bring up the threat of ozone depletion due to CFCs as though it was "another trumped up danger" or something. That was a problem that was real, and the entire world got together, enacted the Montreal Protocol, and ceased all manufacture and use of an entire class of chemicals. The ozone problem is getting better now, because we acted. It is thought that the ozone hole will be healed by 2050. That's a success story, not another example of chicken little-ism. It's an interesting comparison study, though. Here are a couple paragraphs on it cribbed from Wikipedia:

But the Rowland-Molina hypothesis was strongly disputed by representatives of the aerosol and halocarbon industries. The chair of the board of DuPont was quoted as saying that ozone depletion theory is "a science fiction tale...a load of rubbish...utter nonsense". Robert Abplanalp, the president of Precision Valve Corporation (and inventor of the first practical aerosol spray can valve), wrote to the Chancellor of UC Irvine to complain about Rowland's public statements (Roan, p. 56.)

and

But the CFC industry did not give up that easily. As late as 1986, the Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy (an association representing the CFC industry founded by DuPont) was still arguing that the science was too uncertain to justify any action. In 1987, DuPont testified before the US Congress that "we believe that there is no immediate crisis that demands unilateral regulation."[citation needed]

Sounds like the fossil fuel industry, doesn't it?

And no, I did not bring up CFCs as a non-existent threat. It was however never CONCLUSIVELY proven that CFCs were 100% responsible. If I recall correctly that Ozone hole was directly above a fairly active volcano in the Antarctic, and seemed to vary in size in time with its cycles of activity. It was however, seized upon by the same group of politicians that have grabbed onto climate change as their road to power, supported by those who are all too eager and willing to buy into the "technology is dangerous and must be stopped" meme. Then once CFCs had been banned, they were off and running looking for the next technological threat they could turn into a political powerbase.

Don't mistake a real danger for the overhyped and overinflated version of it that those with an agenda will try to push by any means necessary to achieve their goals. The very fact that AGW *IS* such a political issue makes it all the more necessary that it be supported by absolutely impeccable data.



Let me recommend a book for you to read Niner. It's called "God Wants You Dead." http://www.scribd.co...-Wants-You-Dead

Don't let the title fool you. It is NOT about religion. It's about the dangers of simply accepting an ideology instead of thinking rationally and examining memes individually.

[valkyrie_ice]

grr. my internet flaked out on me when I tried to post. :|<

Edited by valkyrie_ice, 25 January 2010 - 09:24 AM.

[JLL]

It does undermine the credibility of the entire IPCC organization to see that kind of a mistake in their paper. I mean, some guy says the Himalayas are going to melt away in a few decades -- which is ridiculous even by common sense -- and these people publish the claim as is, without looking any further.

If some guy would've said the Himalays are going to double in size in a few decades, do you think that would've made the report?

And unless I remember wrong, we haven't been measuring the size of the ozone layer for very long -- since 1950's or something? So where's the evidence that ozone holes have not ever existed before in history?

[valkyrie_ice]

And from todays NEXT BIG FUTURE: http://nextbigfuture...nge-claims.html

FEBRUARY 07, 2010
More Exaggerated Climate Change Claims Causing Backlash as More Are Debunked
The Times UK online reports on more potential errors IPCC Synthesis Report to government leaders

The most important is a claim that global warming could cut rain-fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020, a remarkably short time for such a dramatic change.

This weekend Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC’s climate impacts team, told The Sunday Times that he could find nothing in the report to support the claim. The revelation follows the IPCC’s retraction of a claim that the Himalayan glaciers might all melt by 2035.

The Sunday Telegraph reveals new factual errors and poor sources of evidence in the IPCC reports.

Last weekend, the Telegraph revealed that the panel had based claims about disappearing mountain ice on anecdotal evidence in a student’s dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.

And on Friday, it emerged that the IPCC’s panel had wrongly reported that more than half of the Netherlands was below sea level because it had failed to check information supplied by a Dutch government agency.

The Globe and Mail and other sources that are usually very pro-environmentalism and climate change are reporting "The Great global Warming Collapse"

Walter Russell Mead has coverage

The Dutch government has demanded that the IPCC correct its erroneous assertion that half of the Netherlands is below sea level. Actually, it’s only about a quarter. A prediction about the impact of sea level increases on people living in the Nile Delta was taken from an unpublished student dissertation. The report contained inaccurate data about generating energy from waves and about the cost of nuclear power



But many climate scientists now sense a sinking ship, and they're bailing out. Among them is Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria who acknowledges that the climate body has crossed the line into advocacy. Even Britain's Greenpeace has called for Mr. Pachauri's resignation. India says it will establish its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the IPCC.

None of this is to say that global warming isn't real, or that human activity doesn't play a role, or that the IPCC is entirely wrong, or that measures to curb greenhouse-gas emissions aren't valid. But the strategy pursued by activists (including scientists who have crossed the line into advocacy) has turned out to be fatally flawed.

By exaggerating the certainties, papering over the gaps, demonizing the skeptics and peddling tales of imminent catastrophe, they've discredited the entire climate-change movement. The political damage will be severe. As Mr. Mead succinctly puts it: “Skeptics up, Obama down, cap-and-trade dead.” That also goes for Canada, whose climate policies are inevitably tied to those of the United States.

Alfin Cites Evidence of Black Carbon and Stratospheric Water Vapour Effects

A new study of the effect of black carbon on the melting of Himalayan glaciers demonstrates that 90% of melting is due to aerosols -- not CO2. More than 30% of melting is due to black carbon aerosol, and probably considerably more than 30%.

There is also new climate science on stratospheric water vapour.

scientists from NOAA have published research in Science that challenges the core assumptions of the global warming camp...

...the fundamental assumption in global warming dogma, that carbon dioxide is the most important factor in global warming, is simply not true...the research does allude to human emissions having a much smaller role in climate change than previously thought...

Miskolczi is not the first scientist to introduce the idea of "negative feedback" into atmospheric studies. MIT's Richard Lindzen has been discussing negative feedbacks in climate for many years.

In fact, wherever you look in the atmosphere, the biosphere, or the oceans, you find negative feedbacks are predominant in climate. Otherwise by now the Earth would have experienced runaway climate change in various directions, and never have come back. Instead, when one looks at the history of Earth's climate, one sees fractal cycles that repeat over several overlapping time scales.

Are we beginning to see the light? Can we recognize the pattern yet? Have we realized we've been sold a bill of goods instead of reality?

I would say I hate to say I told you so, but I would be lying. So, how much more evidence of chicanery do you need? How much longer before you stop making excuses for such shoddy "science" and realize it was a political and funding agenda all along?

Yes, there is evidence of warming. BECAUSE SHIFT HAPPENS. It always has. But AGW? Nothing but a scare tactic to get you to keep putting your money in a politician's pocket.

And it still doesn't mean that we do not need to find ways to create cleaner technology. It still doesn't mean we can pollute to our hearts content. It still doesn't mean exploit exploit exploit. We have problems that absolutely need to be addressed. Now maybe they actually can be instead of shoved aside for such fake issues as AGW cap and trade.

Sadly, it seems AGW is going to be allowed to die in silent obscurity, instead of dragged kicking and screaming into the light and publicly executed in hopes of preventing a repeat of this abuse of the public's trust. In five years, it's probably going to be "AGW? Nobody REALLY believed that hype" and the public will be off and crying "kill kill kill" at some new manufactured terror.

Let's just hope that "terror" isn't us transhumans, no?

[M4Y0U]

I didn't read all the discussion but all i can say is that we are recovering from the Little Ice Age and the temperature is actually going back to normal to an average 23 degree celcius and could rise up to a maybe a maximum of 25 degree celcius like it was 500 BC ago. The extremely long fluctuations are directly due to output of the sun.

CO2 haves no impact on warming the earth. Water vapor account for 95% of the green house effect. C02 and methane from sources other than human being 4.62% and 1% is C02 produced by us. Anyway more C02 = more vegetation, bigger trees etc and as C02 increases the plants and tree lose less water from their leaves so they are able to grow better under dryer condition (remember that our main guy for green house effect is water vapor). Animals that depend on vegetation proportionally increases. That applies for agriculture too.

Now let's talk about the ices that is melting. In september the north pole is at is minimum ice coverage and yes actually this minimum is getting smaller but at his maximum (in March) the ice coverage is actually getting bigger since 2006. The Antarctic ices have more fluctuations than the arctic's but it haves slowly increased in coverage since 1975. What happens here when they get alarmed about the melting ices is bad science. They look somewhere and forget to look somewhere else to make a global statistic (which i think is important for a subject such as global warming.

In the United-States you can have yearly temperature fluctuations that can increase but even if it lasts 2 years or 1 year there's nothing that is telling that i won't go back to normal next year. But now that's weather and not global warming I'm talking about.

So final word is we are not responsible for the earth getting warmer and it's all due to the output of the sun. C02 is not guilty and ice melts and grow back quite often.

Temperature changes and get used to it cause it always changed and will always be. As far as i know no one died from global warming in the Medieval Age when the earth was way hotter than it is now.

Best regards,
M4

[JLL]

Sadly, it seems AGW is going to be allowed to die in silent obscurity, instead of dragged kicking and screaming into the light and publicly executed in hopes of preventing a repeat of this abuse of the public's trust. In five years, it's probably going to be "AGW? Nobody REALLY believed that hype" and the public will be off and crying "kill kill kill" at some new manufactured terror.

Well said. Three years ago I said to people that the same newspapers you now see promoting the AGW theory will be criticizing it in five years, and the people who then thought I was crazy will be telling me they always knew AGW was a hoax.

They laughed at the idea then, but the tide is already turning.

[maxwatt]

Sadly, it seems AGW is going to be allowed to die in silent obscurity, instead of dragged kicking and screaming into the light and publicly executed in hopes of preventing a repeat of this abuse of the public's trust. In five years, it's probably going to be "AGW? Nobody REALLY believed that hype" and the public will be off and crying "kill kill kill" at some new manufactured terror.

Well said. Three years ago I said to people that the same newspapers you now see promoting the AGW theory will be criticizing it in five years, and the people who then thought I was crazy will be telling me they always knew AGW was a hoax.

They laughed at the idea then, but the tide is already turning.

Not really. IPCC flooded by criticism (Nature)

Some errors will inevitably creep in, says Jürgen Willebrand, an oceanographer at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Kiel, Germany, and a coordinating lead author of the 2007 report. "IPCC reports are written by humans," he says. "I have no doubt that similar errors could be found in earlier IPCC reports, but nobody has bothered to look in detail because at the time of these reports the IPCC was less visible to society, politics and media." But he says the IPCC should have a more formal process for ensuring each flagged error is dealt with promptly.

He also calls for the IPCC to develop a policy on potential conflicts of interest.

Andrew Weaver, a climate scientist at the University of Victoria in Canada, wants more far-reaching procedural changes. Rather than carrying out "monolithic" assessments, he says, the IPCC should focus on more specific problems such as describing emissions pathways required to avoid a given temperature rise. The distinction between different working groups should also be revised, he suggests