30,000 Scientists to Sue Al Gore for Fraud [Archive]

Jason Foster

12-12-2008, 07:23 PM

Below is a response I gave regarding global warming. I too hate that Al Gore is more about the profit side of the argument than actually caring and doing something about it, if it is indeed an issue. Here is my previous post:

My amazement is how much people are still arguing back and forth about if it is or isn't happening. My question has always been....if it is happening, what is a 'realistic' view of the future. At a talk by Kevin Trenberth, Head of Climate Analysis Section - National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) at a local DC AMS meeting gave me some interesting insight into the Global warming debate. While I don't buy into the Global Warming totally, I acknowledge there are changes happening. My question to him was what is the next step for Scientists in regards to Global Warming studies. He pointed out that there is no forecast model for Global Warming, only projections. That was any extremely important fact to me. Unlike a forecast model, projections only take raw data, and make a linear projection. Forecast models are more elaborate, taking out factors or putting in other data and sources to analyze and predict a real world scenario.

One other aspect to the talk I found interesting is the question of amplitude, not frequency. We know from research that global warming happens, no debate there. However, the question with the recent observations is how rapid, how much, how significant is the warming we are seeing at the moment? What will the trend be?

And even if we don't know these factors to a degree that is going to be considered fact, what is the acceptable level to which we have to understand before making critical social and government decisions that will alter us for the foreseeable future. I think the real focus now is on how do we as citizens respond to the issue (with the current information we do know), and what responses to be need to be prepared for in the future if Global Warming is going to affect our lives significantly.

Jim Saueressig

12-12-2008, 07:36 PM

As I have said before there is no doubt the Earth cycles between hot and cold but whether or not we are helping or hurting it is a toss up, one thing I have no doubt about is that the pollution is bad for us and the environment both and should be curbed. These global warming alarmists however are just distracting people from the realities of pollution to make a few billion more bucks.

Rob Wadsworth

12-12-2008, 07:40 PM

I think that it is high time that the 30k scientists opposed to the Global Warming scam go toe-to-toe with their best evidence and let the chips fall where they may. You can bet that I am rooting for the underdogs - the 30k. All they need do is to have enough evidence of another plausible cause and to put the CO2 argument to rest - as it should be.

My best guess of the warming trend is the possibility of the Earth's core heating from within and thereby gradually heating the ocean floor. We know that on a global scale, volcanism has been increasing along the 'ring of fire' over the last thirty years. If it is caused by large dosages of radiation from the Sun (including heat, light, and other/all sub-atomic particles) over the last thirty years - then it less to do with the accumulation of CO2 and more to do with the Sun - in essence. There can the mixing of all of the above that make it happen...

Connor McCrorey

12-12-2008, 07:41 PM

Like many others I believe that GW exists, or at least that we are currently in a warming trend, but I am not at all sold on it being our fault. Maybe I just haven't seen enough evidence, but I do not plan on completely altering my lifestyle just to satisfy a theory.

Jim Saueressig

12-12-2008, 07:56 PM

Take a look at the Time Machines (http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/ClimateTimeMachine/climateTimeMachine.cfm) Ice Cap.

Even till 2006 it varies but recovers. I will grant you that 2007 looks bad but it is still natural in my opinion. To me if you watch the right side that barely goes away it makes me think of an altering sea current on the left bringing warmer water.

CO2 shows China as the demon....

Temperatures? Look at 30's -40's Yes we are higher now but do you see a cyclic pattern? I do. Look at Alaska in 1845

MatthewCarman

12-12-2008, 08:19 PM

I am not sold GW is our fault. The Earth has been in extreme warming periods before including the warming period in the Medieval ages that came before the little ice age. Greenland also used to be all Green. That is why it is called Greenland. If the snow on Greenland melts people will freak out and scream GW. I think Earth is just going through a natural life cycle. We may be making our planet a little warmer but I doubt it will change Earths life cycle. I also feel our records do not go back far enough.

I also don't think Gore deserved the Nobel Peace prize he received on GW.

Stephen Levine

12-12-2008, 09:08 PM

It irks me to no end that the denial continues. It's scientific fact that our CO2 levels in the atmosphere has risen constantly and sharply since the dawning our our industrial age.

It has been shown time and time again through such things as soot in the snowy reaches of the Arctic that human kind has been a prime cause of the CO2 rise.

The very same resistance has happened through the decades when for intance, cigarette companies have sued to protect themselves within the shroud of lies that smoking does not dramatically increase the risk of lung cancer.

It is my hope that some day this denial will stop, and that we will listen for once to what our climate feedbacks are telling us.

Consider that the earth may not get uniformely warmer; instead it may simply get more and more erratic, unpredictable and dangerous for large masses of populations.

At the very least it does not hurt to invest in renewable energy sources in order to lower our CO2 footprint and create green jobs.

Jeff Snyder

12-12-2008, 09:18 PM

Is anyone actually debating whether GW (or, more generally, global climate change - temp, sea level, ice, precip changes, ocean SSTs, etc) is occurring anymore? This is AMPLE evidence that global warming is happening. That's not the debate.

Why would Al Gore debate someone? HE'S NOT A SCIENTIST! He's a politician who has taken up a cause. In the process, like most politicians, he's polarized entire populations, many who reach their "conclusion" based solely on what they think could or could not happen, regardless of any physical evidence to support such a belief. The global climate change (since we should include not only temperature changes, but also sea level, ice, precipitation, ocean temperatures and salinity, etc., changes) issue has turned into a blue vs. red issue - i.e. it has turned into a political issue. To some degree, this is expected, since political policy has been brought into the global warming arena. However, it has dumbed down the populace as people listen to their favorite talk radio host, one who doesn't have any idea about the science behind climate change, to form their own opinion. Rather, I should say, they just take the "opinion" of their favored talk show host. Yes, this goes both ways, both the "OMG The world will be aflame tomorrow!" crowd and the "global warming is a crock of garbage" crowd. Interestingly, it seems as though it's becoming increasingly trendy to join the "pff, global warming is scam" crowd. There has been a misrepresentation of the science by both sides, and it doesn't take much of a Google search to find such rampant misreprentations... Example: big story run by some about how the ice in the N. Hemi. has grown at a record rate this fall. Well, it has, but it's growing from a near RECORD LOW, and a look at the trends certainly tells a story much different from the "ice growing at record pace - GW is crap!" false conclusion.

I'm not necessarily saying the global warming is completely and certainly being caused by human activity, and many scientists would agree that anthropogenic forcings are not 100% certain. However, there seems to be considerable more evidence to support it than to refute it. Are humans causing it? Again, there is some evidence to support such a notion. Yes, the world HAS been warmer in the past without humans. There are plenty of NATURAL forcings that can cause global climate change. However, just because it's happened naturally in the past does NOT mean that it CAN'T happen any other way! You cannot draw that conclusion. The world may well be warming without humans, but it's the RATE at which the warming has increased in the past 100 years that is anomalous. As such, the evidence would seem to support the idea that it's certainly POSSIBLE that humans can affect the climate. The residence times of some greenhouse gases is on the order of centuries and millenia!

As with many issues, the truth probably lies between the two extremes... The Earth likely will not become engulfed in flames tomorrow (nor will sea level rise 30 feet by 2010), but it also seems likely to me that the observed climate change (temp, sea levle, ice extent, etc) is being enhanced by human activity (greenhouse gas release, deforestation, land use changes, etc). Just because the messanger may have an agenda does not mean that the entirety of the message is false.

FWIW: Are these 30,000 folks the same economists, sociologists, and TV "meteorologists" who signed the petition to Congress? Heck, that list included many actual scientists who merely stated that it was NOT certain that humans were causing global warming. There are examples on that list of scientists who have said that GW may or may not be significantly affected by humans, and those folks were counted as being "against" the idea of anthropogenic GW by the makers of that list. *rolls eyes* Yes, there are legitimate climate scientists who do not believe humans are having any effect on climate, and,heck, it's good that there is disagreement. In the end, it will be for the betterment of climate science that doubt exists. However, misrepresentation and politicalization of the science only misleads people and undermines the science.

Jim Saueressig

12-12-2008, 09:21 PM

At the very least it does not hurt to invest in renewable energy sources in order to lower our CO2 footprint and create green jobs.

That part I won't dispute but look at all the bogus alternatives they offer. Solar energy is a joke unless it is placed directly on the premises that requires the energy. The expense to create and maintain the current solar energy plants in California is way up there.

Alcohol is the biggest scam yet. What is it they say? If they converted all the grains and such in the world to alcohol it would only cover 13% of Americas current fuel needs?

So far there are no real alternatives but obviously we need some answers.

Scott Weberpal

12-12-2008, 10:04 PM

Jim Saueressig

12-12-2008, 10:27 PM

And guess what is the NUMBER ONE source of CO2 in the atmosphere? Volcanoes!! Yes, that's right folks. And what follows major volcanic events? LOWER global temperatures.

I was thinking about checking the temps on the time machine against volcanic eruptions as many of the spots are real suspiciously near volcanoes...

Brian Emfinger

12-12-2008, 10:37 PM

I know volcanoes release a lot of CO2 but wouldn't a graph showing volcanic co2 release over time be quite variable? Obviously volcanoes release CO2 but if that were the main cause in CO2 rise the chart would not look like this:
http://www.carbonify.com/images/atmospheric-carbon-dioxide.gif

I don't even see a bump for Pinatubo....

I just found that estimates are:

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea.

Rob Wadsworth

12-12-2008, 10:59 PM

Both of the Mt Tambora and the Krakatau explosions created conditions that had the following effects of sudden cooling that lasted a minimum of six years. They are both forces that created vastly larger doses of CO, CO2, and SO2 than Global Warning is supposedly responsible for. A small but significant measure of light reaching the Earth was reflected AWAY from the Earth that created a temporary state of Global Cooling.
See: "The Year Without a Summer" on Google Search...

These gases subsided and were eventually dispersed and washed down out of the atmosphere; it corrected itself. The present change in CO2 levels are not drastic enough to do anything except make all living plant material to grow more vigorously due to the fact that plants use CO2 to manufacture starch/sugar thru chlorophyll and give off oxygen. Reports in the farmers almanacs after those 5-6 years after the major volcanic explosions showed that a significant rise in the SO2 being washed into the soil along with the abundance of CO2 (although they were unaware of these actual factors at that time) made for bumper crops after the six-year re stabilization of the atmosphere.

Having the politicians enter into it - such as 'Man-Bear-Pig' ('South Park') Al Gore and twisting the facts to his own leanings/likings and cronies only clouded the perceptions that we now know as 'Global Warming'. It isn't wrong - per se - except that the true cause has yet to be uncovered and is as yet unknown.

I can tell you - as a farmer - that we had a bumper crop year for both corn and soybeans in this part of Iowa. Is it due to the abundance of timely rainfall, sun light, AND the slightly elevated quantity of CO2? I would have to say: yes.

Brian Emfinger

12-12-2008, 11:07 PM

just to be clear...

Volcanoes reduce global temperature by sending pollutants (dust, gases, etc) into the stratosphere. They release CO2 but that is tremendously offset by sunlight being reflected by pollutants in the stratosphere.

I suppose we could learn to control volcanoes and when it gets too warm to just set one off?

We release more CO2 per year than the years that included the Tambora and Krakatau eruptions...

I imagine this will be immediately discredited somehow but it shows the normal cycles and it shows how we are not in a normal cycle.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/images/co2_concentrations-lg.gif

Jeff Snyder

12-12-2008, 11:11 PM

What IS FACT is that our planet cycles through climate changes naturaly and that has been going on for millions of years. There is evidence to this FACT locked away in polar ice, trees rings of 3000 year old Sequoia trees, fossils, and other geologic features.

You mention historical/proxy data sources for evidence that the earth has been warmer. However, by the same sources, there is ample (and corroborated) data that indicate that the earth has been warming much faster in the past 100 years than centuries and millenia. Yes, there wasn't much in the way of thermometers 300+ years ago, but there are proxy data, as you know. When various data sources (tree rings, ice core samples, fossil pollen, sedimentation samples, coral samples etc.) corroborate a basic trend, it lends some confidence that the trend is not a function of statistical manipulation. Even examining rural stations (to minimize effects of urban sprawl) indicates significant global mean temperature increases over the past 100 years. In addition, we know that the sea level is rising, mean and especially summer minimum ice extent is diminishing (except for minor expansion in/near Antarctica), and oceanic SSTs are, in the mean, rising. All of these other readily-measured observables conceptually agree with global warming. Yes, there are problems with the international temperature record, and there are many different datasets that use different correction factors in an attempt to remove things like urbanization, instrument quality, etc. However, nearly all of them show the same story.

And guess what is the NUMBER ONE source of CO2 in the atmosphere? Volcanoes!! Yes, that's right folks. And what follows major volcanic events? LOWER global temperatures. WHY? Because of all the aerosols spewed into upper levels of the atmosphere that reduces incoming sunlight. Read about Mt Pinatubo and its affects on our climate here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo

Al Gore's intentions are for nobody's benefits but himself.
Denial? Ha. I challenge anyone on Al Gore's side to get educated. Read this:

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

The earth's orbit has a natural effect called orbital forcing. Evidence shows correlations with climate changes.

Okay, I just had to speak up and vent.Not a single person in here denies any of that. As I said in the previous post, and as most folks who are moderately read on global climate change data and forcings know, the climate does change naturally! Milankovitch cycles (e.g. orbital and tilt variations), volcanic eruptions, changes in solar output, and many other 100% natural factors CAN and HAVE changed the climate in the past. Heck, a large volcanic eruption may change the climate much faster and much more significantly than humans can. This is no surprise, and no one will refute that. However, just because natural factors can change climate does NOT necessarily mean that ONLY they can change the climate. None of the above natural forcings inherently preclude humans from changing the climate. Are you denying that CO2 does not absorb and re-radiate longwave energy? Are you refuting the idea that deforestation and land use changes effect the heat balance and composition of the atmosphere?

All of this seems like it would be best represented by a probability distribution function. There needn't be a binary or extreme "Yes, humans are the sole cause of massive global warming" or "No, humans have 0, zilch, absolutely no effect whatsoever on the atmosphere and climate". It seems, to me, that is is more likely than not that humans have some effect on the global climate. Sure, it may turn out that humans have a negligible impact, and the observed increase rate of warming lately is purely coincidence in terms of industrialization, or it's just a statistical error. However, it believe that's not the MOST LIKELY outcome or driver of observed global climate change.

The "us" vs. "them" mentality in which those who support global warming are either blind sheep or conspirators out to screw the world's larger economies seems insulting to those who consider themselves relatively educated. Sure, some folks just regurgitate what they hear in the media, but that works both ways (either for or against the notion that humans affect the climate). But there are many educated, well-read people who certainly have no will to "conspire" against everyone to lead this "scam", nor do they have an ulterior motive to produce fake science for the sole purpose of grant money. And it's insulting to insinuate such.

Jim Saueressig

12-12-2008, 11:18 PM

I would be inclined to say deforestation causes more of an increase in CO2 than any other cause ever..... Lets find a way to compare those two and I think you will see what is dooming us to higher CO2 concentrations.

Jason Harris

12-12-2008, 11:22 PM

Deforestation is #2 after energy pollution:

--
The rampant slashing and burning of tropical forests is second only to the energy sector as a source of greenhouses gases according to report published today by the Oxford-based Global Canopy Programme, an alliance of leading rainforest scientists.
Figures from the GCP, summarising the latest findings from the United Nations, and building on estimates contained in the Stern Report, show deforestation accounts for up to 25 per cent of global emissions of heat-trapping gases, while transport and industry account for 14 per cent each; and aviation makes up only 3 per cent of the total.
----
note, that's 25 vs. 31%
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/deforestation-the-hidden-cause-of-global-warming-448734.html

Jim Saueressig

12-12-2008, 11:32 PM

So to stop deforestation and start planting trees would reverse the trend. We still need to reduce pollution but to me to put a stop to deforestation or find a way to replace what is lost would overcome the increase and turn it around. I wonder how much all the slash and burn fires add by themselves not counting the loss of consumption by the burned trees.

I would like to throw out though that in my opinion the trucking industry is probably the worst contributor there is in the auto category with its diesel pollution...

Rob Wadsworth

12-12-2008, 11:48 PM

I can remember growing up in the Santa Clara Valley here in CA in the 70's; now - that was air pollution that was visible and dangerously breathable. Over the last ten years, there is hardly a single day that one can see any pollution. The change in auto specifications have already so drastically reduced emissions (some newer vehicles - including my own - are now '0 pollution' output conformance) that it is rapidly being a non-major contributor to air contamination.

Deforestation has been met - at least in the US - with replanting forested lands thru compliance of their own in order to maintain their own industry. Plants/trees will often spontaneously grow if their environmental conditions are favorably present. Even in the slash-and-burn practices in Brazil and Central America, it is a constant fight to keep these jungles pushed back from overrunning and reclaiming the land. You can't grow daisies at the N pole, and Brazil cannot support permafrost. There are other factors that need to be looked into before the politicians can reach into your pocketbooks and before they can say conclusively that man is the real cause of GW.

Furthermore, some of the statistics of 400k years must be skewed. We know that when Mt St Helens erupted that there was a HUGE spike in CO2, SO2, and ash that those statistics fail to demonstrate. I can only imagine what it was like after the Tambora blast. Or even the super-explosion from Yellowstone? A 'no show'?!?
Is THAT evidence of GW or the old axiom that states 'figures don't lie; but liars do figure'?
Me thinks so!

Correction: the super explosion was 640k years ago.
Please note that time frame is conspicuously missing from the chart above...

Jeff Snyder

12-13-2008, 12:45 AM

There's a difference between relatively large aerosols that have negative radiative forcing (that is, they have a net cooling effect), and greenhouse gases that have positive radiative forcing. Large particulates that tend to decrease insolation at the surface are often quite visible and cause a lot of the smog, etc. The greenhouse gases (like CO2, SF6, CH4, etc) are largely invisible in terms of what we'd normally call smoggy, nasty pollution. In addition, some greenhouse gases have residence times in the atmosphere on the order of many decades and millenia. In other words, a release of SF6, for example, will stay in the atmosphere for a long, long, long time. A release of some heavy particulates, many of which have a net cooling effect, tends to have a much lower residence time. In that manner, the pollution reduction laws and guidelines actually HAVE had a little warming effect since they have removed a source of cooling. In actuality, it's probably not so much that the pollution control laws have caused some warming, it's more that they have removed a source of man-made cooling.

In addition, recent volcanic explosions haven't actually released that much CO2, particularly compared to anthropogenic releases. Rob, show me a reliable reading that moden volcanoes release such tremendous amounts of CO2, please, and show how the increase in CO2 from such an explosion would outweight the cooling effect of increased stratospheric aerosols. The global CO2 monitoring stations have not shown much of any increase in CO2 caused by recent volcanic eruptions. More important than CO2, volcanoes are very proficient at releasing SO2, which, if expelled high enough into the stratosphere, can become sulphate aerosols and result in global cooling. There are a couple of datasets used that contain estimates of the visible optical depth of aerosols produced from volcanic explosions since the late 1800s, and these are used in some climate models. So, any increase in CO2 or other GHGs from volcanic eruptions can mask any temperature effect they would have because of the overwhelming cooling effect caused by a sudden and significant increase in atmospheric aerosols. Again, we all know that volcanoes can cause rapid and significant climate change. That doesn't prove, however, that humans can't.

Jason Foster

12-13-2008, 02:07 AM

To put a slightly different twist to it....lets assume there is a significant Global Warming event. What is a realistic view for the climate in the next 100 years....if global warming exists. Let's also assume that we humans have been the source of the problem. Would it be fair to say that the source of may of the contributing gases is from burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and assorted gases. If we are consuming so much of these fossil fuels, and we are also saying that these are in limited supply, to possible run out....would it be possible that we'll just run out of the fuel that creates the problem before Global Warming gets really bad....thereby resolving the problem anyway.

Just a quick side thought.

Simon Brewer

12-13-2008, 02:26 AM

I had come to the conclusion a while ago that the human effect on global warming was not an issue. The data, not CNN or FOX crap data, is pretty solid in support of human influences on climate change. I mean you can't burn a good chunk of the world's fossil fuels, pump that crap into the atmosphere, and not expect something to happen? I think the real issue is whether human kind should bother to attempt to stop what they started. It's kinda like trying to stop a boulder after you dislodge it from the top of a mountain; maybe we should just let it roll to the bottom and get out of the way.

I think polution is a more important issue. Things will change, the climate will change, so we have to adapt to a new climate, but it would be easier to adapt if our water wasn't poluted with chemicals like; fertilizers, oils, drugs (mostly legal), sewage runoff, toxic waste from factories, etc...

Brian Stertz

12-13-2008, 07:20 AM

Agree with you Simon...the Chesapeake Bay is a classic example of things that have been allowed to go on pollution wise with fertilizer poisoning. This has hurt the marine life to a point that parts of the bay are devoid of anything living including the famous crabs. I visited VA a couple years ago and spoke with a crusty crabman. He said that he is going to have to give up his way of life. He has been a crabber for a long, long time...now GW stuff. I say give Al Gore some red-face as he tries to backpeddle. Be it said that I am not a tree-hugger activist...but that Chesapeake Bay situation kind of bothered me...and I know many other places have been similarly affected.

Brian Emfinger

12-13-2008, 08:03 AM

Furthermore, some of the statistics of 400k years must be skewed. We know that when Mt St Helens erupted that there was a HUGE spike in CO2, SO2, and ash that those statistics fail to demonstrate. I can only imagine what it was like after the Tambora blast. Or even the super-explosion from Yellowstone? A 'no show'?!?
Is THAT evidence of GW or the old axiom that states 'figures don't lie; but liars do figure'?
Me thinks so!

Correction: the super explosion was 640k years ago.
Please note that time frame is conspicuously missing from the chart above...
Yes its all a big conspiracy.

I would love to see any link, proof, or any evidence at all (there isnt but you can look) that shows St. Helens caused a huge spike in CO2. It didnt.

http://www.frankodwyer.com/blog/imgs/volcanoes_daily_co2.jpg
http://www.frankodwyer.com/blog/imgs/volcanoes_century_co2.jpg

It doesn't take a smart person to know that all the cars, factories, burning, etc are releasing a lot of CO2 per day.

I had thought most people had moved past the CO2 issue... I wonder if there are still any that think the world is flat as well?

Dan Robinson

12-13-2008, 08:22 AM

Has the link between CO2 and warming been scientifically explained, or is it still based entirely on the fact that the two data plots (temp VS CO2) are coincidentally similar?

Olivier Staiger

12-13-2008, 12:51 PM

global warming started 12 000 years ago, at the end of Ice Age.

global cooling started billions of years ago, seconds after the Big Bang.

Travis W Speakman

12-13-2008, 01:02 PM

If any of you haven't see this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVw1PANUcdg

Jim Saueressig

12-13-2008, 01:20 PM

If any of you haven't see this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVw1PANUcdg

I never heard that before, Thank You." FU" Al Gore

Videofied:

OVw1PANUcdg

Jeff Duda

12-13-2008, 01:34 PM

Brian,

Although my viewpoint on the subject is similar to yours, I hate to see you shouting down someone else's evidence with your own when there's no source (that is to say, what is the source of your graphs?)

To others, I advise you all to read through the IPCC 4th Assessment Report. It's true that a 100% true link between human activities and global warming has NOT been made, but the signs show that it is (if I may quote the IPCC AR4) "very likely" that human activities have caused a change in the climate leading to warming. Even if you choose not to believe that, however, look at some of the graphs regarding radiative forcing contributions and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations over time. For the greenhouse gas concentrations you'll see a curve that resembles extreme exponential growth in the last 250 years. For radiative forcing contributions, you'll see that things like solar cycles contribute little compared to what C02 and other greenhouse gases are contributing.

Jeff Snyder

12-13-2008, 01:52 PM

To others, I advise you all to read through the IPCC 4th Assessment Report. It's true that a 100% true link between human activities and global warming has NOT been made, but the signs show that it is (if I may quote the IPCC AR4) "very likely" that human activities have caused a change in the climate leading to warming.

Here's the link to the 4th Assessment Report - Working Group I ("The Physical Science Basis"):

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

This part of the larger 4th Assessment Report is a full 1000 pages long. Therefore, I strongly suggest reading the "Technical Summary", a much shorter version that highlights the findings and important discussions of the longer report. If you find a particular point within the Technical Summary that you want to find more information on (or more explanation), then you can view the chapter in which that point is made or discussed. As always, please do not come into it thinking "this is UN propaganda crap", since it's simply not. There's a 1000 pages of science summarized there. And that's not including the Synthesis Report, Working Group II report, or Working Group III report. The latter deals with political factors, and I have no motivation to read that. The Working Group I report, however, deals solely with the science involved. Included is discussion about errors and uncertainty.

Mike Smith

12-13-2008, 01:56 PM

To others, I advise you all to read through the IPCC 4th Assessment Report. It's true that a 100% true link between human activities and global warming has NOT been made, but the signs show that it is (if I may quote the IPCC AR4) "very likely" that human activities have caused a change in the climate leading to warming. Even if you choose not to believe that, however, look at some of the graphs regarding radiative forcing contributions and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations over time. For the greenhouse gas concentrations you'll see a curve that resembles extreme exponential growth in the last 250 years. For radiative forcing contributions, you'll see that things like solar cycles contribute little compared to what C02 and other greenhouse gases are contributing.

The IPCC's position is correctly represented above but it is based on models with all of their imperfections.

The fact is that world temperatures as measured by Hadley, UAH and RSS have not gone up (and have, in fact, gone down slightly) in 11 years. Sea levels have stopped rising. Antarctic ice has been at record levels and arctic ice is now above the (very short term) normal. This is not consistent with CO2 being the primary driver of climate as the IPCC contends since CO2 concentrations are at (modern day) record levels.

Hansen's/IPCC's projections have been consistently too warm when compared to actual temperatures.

I do believe mankind affects the climate. But the IPCC's projections and tales of woe are hardly "settled science."

Jason Harris

12-13-2008, 02:23 PM

I'm sure others are more up on this, but regarding ice loss or gain, there needs to be clarity for everyone discussing the issue of sea ice vs. landmass ice, which is where the net loss has been coming from. Also, all data I've seen continues to indicate a trend of ice loss from the land ice, which is the main problem, and which is harder to get back. so, I don't understand these claims to the contrary when all the overwhelming evidence continues to show
ongoing melting. North Pole island for the first time (at least in our history)--see that? as of nov. 2008. Where are you getting your data Mike Smith? Seems like NASA and National Snow and Ice Data Centre tells an opposite story with satellite data.

--
A satellite survey between 1996 and 2006 found that the net loss of ice from Antarctica rose by about 75 per cent as the movement of glaciers towards the sea speeded up.

Scientists estimate that that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet lost about 132 billion tons of ice in 2006, compared with a loss of 83 billion tons in 1996. In addition, the Antarctic peninsula lost about 60 billion tons of ice in 2006
---

Furthermore, as that article points out--and many other studies have--the IPCC seems to have erred on the side of being too conservative in their predictions. However, we've also seen claims for some short-term checks in warming trends, but every year doesn't have to be yet another warm record to indicate a trend.
---
Computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which predict that sea levels will rise by no more than about 50cm by 2100, are based largely on the stability of the Antarctic ice sheets. But many scientists now believe this forecast is too restrained. "I agree with a number of scientists who feel the IPCC is likely to have underestimated the upper bound of predicted sea-level rise by the end of the century – 50 cm is probably too conservative," Professor Bamber added.
--
quotes from:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/loss-of-antarctic-ice-has-soared-by-75-per-cent-in-just-10-years-769894.html

And here's a more recent article noting record-breaking North pole loss:
The North Pole has become an island for the first time in human history as climate change has made it possible to circumnavigate the Arctic ice cap.

The historic development was revealed by satellite images taken last week showing that both the north-west and north-east passages have been opened by melting ice.

Prof Mark Serreze, a sea ice specialist at the National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) in the US said the images suggested the Arctic may have entered a "death spiral" caused by global warming.

Shipping companies are already planning to exploit the first simultaneous opening of the routes since the beginning of the last Ice Age 125,000 years ago. The Beluga Group in Germany says it will send the first ship through the north-east passage, around Russia, next year, cutting 4,000 miles off the voyage from Germany to Japan.

Meanwhile, Stephen Harper, Canada's Prime Minister, has announced that ships entering the north-west passage should first report to his government. The routes have previously opened at different times, with the western route opening last year, and the eastern route opening in 2005.

The satellite images gathered by Nasa show that the north-west passage opened last weekend and the final blockage on the east side of the ice cap, an area of sea ice stretching to Siberia, dissolved a few days later.

Last year the extent of sea ice in the Arctic reached a record low that could be surpassed in the next few weeks, with some scientists warning that the ice cap could soon vanish altogether during summer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3350631/Arctic-becomes-an-island-as-ice-melts.html

Rob Wadsworth

12-13-2008, 02:29 PM

Well, didn't I kick off the great debate that gives this site added purpose! lol!
Thanks for all of the responses everyone. I couldn't respond earlier as I was taking my HAM test for the Tech Class. Got 100% on the actual test after a previous night of about 980 practice questions that I averaged about 91%!

I pointed out that the first graph that Brian E displayed, showed NO RESPONSE to the super explosion of Yellowstone. Which - in itself - raised my suspicions (not 'conspiracies' - but that has yet to be proven either way as yet) to believe that if this is the evidence being presented - then it very well could be skewed. Who made this omission and was it an oversight - or was it intentional has also yet to be seen. Do you ruffle your feathers because I am skeptical of the presented evidence? Science, as a rule, waits for all of the evidence to be presented before any conclusions or theory can be drawn.

As far as the Mt St Helens thing, I have no evidence to present here - except to say that it was 'hearsay' from the TV reporter on national TV at the time of the actual event. So, I apologize for introducing that as evidence.

This is still a mute point because I am not convinced that the CO2 is the ABSOLUTE cause of this situation. I don't believe that any one of us know all of the factors involved, although all of us have our own opinions on this matter. What about all of the heat energy from all of the vehicles that are used everyday that adds extra heat energy? Is it merely entropy? Or is it also a major player or minor contributor - since this same heat is not lost into space but redirected int the atmosphere? No one has even mentioned this as a factor. Remember that catalytic converters generate FAR more heat than a vehicle that doesn't have them - considerably more. Or the amount of heat generated by homes and business that is radiated outward - there is far more homes and businessescreated in the last fifty years that also contributes this same energy as well. Entropy; no. Just to mention a few that can skew results and fog interpretations.

The possibilities are still unexplained and uncollected, and I see nothing here as yet that sways me either way - there isn't anything that one can say is conclusively responsible for what we are calling 'GW'...

Thanks!

Mike Smith

12-13-2008, 02:45 PM

As I stated, the ice (2008 = red line) is above the short term normal. See: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png .

Earlier this year, I demonstrated that the summertime loss of ice was due to increased soot: http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2008/04/ , "A Simple Experiment, April 2, 2008." Now that there is total darkness in the arctic (and albedo is not a factor) the ice has increased to above average levels.

And, on this date 70 years ago, The New York Times was proclaiming concern about arctic temperatures: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/12/today-in-climate-history-dec-12th-1938-getting-warmer/ .

There is no evidence the Antarctic ice is melting, it is actually increasing: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a_new_record_for_antartic_total_ice_extent .

Jason Harris

12-13-2008, 02:58 PM

Okay Mike, I'm calling foul on your source. You may not be aware of it, but Icecap is not a legitimate agency like NASA, NOAA, or USGS.
It's tied to the Frontiers of Freedom that is funded by Exxon and other oil companies.
---from sourcewatch.org
The Web site domain name for ICECAP was registered on October 20, 2006 by Joseph D'Aleo, who is listed among the personnel of the Science and Public Policy Institute, another organization that promotes the views of global warming skeptics that is backed by the Frontiers of Freedom[2].
&
--
Frontiers of Freedom receives money of tobacco and oil companies, including Philip Morris Cos, ExxonMobil and RJ Reynolds Tobacco. According to the New York Times: "Frontiers of Freedom, which has about a $700,000 annual budget, received $230,000 from Exxon in 2002, up from $40,000 in 2001, according to Exxon documents”.

George Landrith, President of FoF told the New York Times: “They've determined that we are effective at what we do”, He said Exxon essentially took the attitude, “We like to make it possible to do more of that”.
--

Cherry picked propaganda sources funded by oil companies does not trump the scientific data. If that's how people are going to debate, I'm done here.

--
and again, another recent study (Jan. 2008)--yes, some resistance with the Eastern sheet but you can't just claim "75 percent in a decade" increase of loss doesn't exist when the survey indicates otherwise:

--
Global warming has caused annual ice loss from the Antarctic ice sheet to surge by 75 percent in a decade, according to the most detailed survey ever made of the white continent's coastal glaciers.

In 2006, accelerating glaciers spewed an estimated 192 billion tons of Antarctic ice into the sea, scientists calculate.

The West Antarctica ice sheet lost some 132 billion tons, while the Antarctic Peninsula, the tongue of land that juts up towards South America, lost around 60 million tons.

But there was a "near-zero" loss in East Antarctica, the world's biggest ice sheet, the paper says.

Investigators from five countries, led by Eric Rignot of NASA's fabled Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), used interferometry radar from four satellites to build a picture of the periphery of Antarctica. (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,24897,23048813-601,00.html)

They sought to measure the velocities of glaciers that shift ice to the coast from the massive sheets that cover Antarctica's bedrock.

They built up a picture of around 85 percent of Antarctica's coastline thanks to the data supplied by the European Space Agency's two Earth Remoting Sensing (ERS) satellites, the Canadian Radarsat-1 and Japan's Advanced Land Observing satellites.
---
[P.S. I bet if you took a poll, people in Texas, MS, and LA will be especially resistant to the idea of global warming/climate change this year because of the recent snow--and that's precisely the problem with discussions on climate. People tend to think it's the weather you had yesterday or today, and if it's not hotter than climate change doesn't exist.]

Scott Weberpal

12-13-2008, 02:59 PM

Perhaps we could set up a poll on here with a few questions,

I believe global warming is...

1) mostly cause by human disregard for the environment and rising CO2 levels
2) mostly a naturally occurring anomoly with some enhancement by humans
3) and even mix between humans and nature
4) a complete fraud

MODS - any way to add on a poll?

Jeff Snyder

12-13-2008, 03:04 PM

As I stated, the ice (2008 = red line) is above the short term normal. See: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png .

Just to present a graph that includes data from a little longer back...

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/images/essays/seaice/s2-big.jpg

Short-term fluctuations are expected, by the general trend is for reduced arctic ice extent.

FWIW, the 4th Assessment Report from the IPCC acknowledges that Antarctic ice extent has increased of late. The increase is not enough to offset the mean decrease in N.H. / arctic ice loss, so the global mean change is negative.

Good idea, Scott. I have a feeling that most STers would be in the "moderate" zone of some natural forcing and some human/anthropogenic forcing. However, a poll would be nice to test my suspicion.

Robert Dewey

12-13-2008, 03:19 PM

Al Gore is simply trying to help humanity. Unfortunately, he still hasn't figured out how to help himself; perhaps he should fly his private jet back to his mansion and start with his own back yard (or at least hire illegal immigrants to do it) ;)

Mike Smith

12-13-2008, 04:36 PM

Jason Harris

12-13-2008, 04:55 PM

It's fine to say "Facts are facts, it doesn't matter where they originate."
And I agree, but that's not what I see in the previous statements; I see selective offering of facts to distort the larger picture.
And then the ignoring of points like these:

--
In 2006, accelerating glaciers spewed an estimated 192 billion tons of Antarctic ice into the sea, scientists calculate.

The West Antarctica ice sheet lost some 132 billion tons, while the Antarctic Peninsula, the tongue of land that juts up towards South America, lost around 60 million tons.
---
Notice for example, how with this quote here about Greenland [below], I could have quoted from any particular statistic to emphasize the melting increase, the fact it's not as great a problem as some thought, or that it's a summer issue in particular, but each detail by itself doesn't' tell the whole picture: Greenland is melting faster. The North Pole is melting faster--so much that new shipping routes are opening up that were once fabled hopes, and some sea ice fluctuations in the South Pole don't somehow invalidate the larger trend of net ice loss. And yes, I'm going to trust climatological publications that are science-based much more than cherry-picked political think tanks. Al Gore never has to enter the equation, nor does James Inhofe.

--
Once at the base of the ice sheet, the water seems to have drained away within a day. "It was either tapping into an existing drainage system or forming a new system" at the base of the ice sheet, Das says.

To get a broader view of how such water is affecting Greenland's ice, Ian Joughin of the University of Washington, Seattle, US, led a separate study using satellite images and GPS measurements. His team assembled the first map of the movement of the ice sheet and glaciers in Greenland, and found that each summer, the ice sheets slid toward the ocean 50 to 100% faster than they did during the rest of the year.

However, glaciers, which already flow much faster than the surrounding ice sheet, speed up by less than 15% during the summer, according to the study.

Nonetheless, the lubrication from the meltwater could make Greenland lose from 10 to 25% more ice over the 21st century than if this effect was not at work, Joughin and colleagues estimate.

"The good news is that increased melting [with continued global warming] doesn't seem like it's going to cause a runaway effect like some people had predicted," Joughin says.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13729

MatthewCarman

12-13-2008, 05:56 PM

How do we know when GW actually started? Do we have accurate data that actually tells us how warm it was say 1000 years ago compared to today? What caused the "little ice age"? It was very warm before that period in time to and it became cold again. Maybe we are headed into another GC period? How accurate is data when it only goes back so far. If we have accurate data from before the 1900's I would like to know how it is accurate.

K Johnson

12-13-2008, 06:15 PM

Wow. For two years I have been waiting for a thread to appear on ST that I feel I can positively contribute to. And finally this appears, it is perfect, this is what I do. This is what I get paid for. And Ive had far too many GnT's to put forward as coherant a reply as I would like. But Im too fired up not to try!

I am a hardcore eco extremist veggie whacko - in the eyes of my psycho harcore republican gas guzzling best friend. This argument is one we have been debating for years. For me, the argument is based not on science. The science is there for all to see - Co2 emmisions from human activity is having an effect on the climate. This is a contributing factor to climate change. Yes - there are other factors. The debate is how much? But who cares? For me the argument comes down soley to responsibilty.

We are affecting the climate. Natural occurances could outweigh the influence our CO2 outputs have. Or they may not. Maybe a massive volcano could do more damage in a year than humans could do in a century. Maybe a solar flare / burst whatevertheyrecalled could wipe out the planet in minutes. But these things are not happening. Our CO2 output IS happening. Why should we ignore our responsibilities because something worse and outside of our control may or may not happen in our lifetime, or even in the next few centuries.

My biggest fear is not of 'losing' the CO2 debate to the politics of 'GW'. I never thought that humans were the only things responsible for GW. My fear is that if a bunch of republicans with a chip on their shoulder debate and win the argument of GW, and then the whole notion of sustainability and an eco/ clean planet will also get wiped out at the same time.

No matter how much effect humans have on GW / climate change - whether we are 2% responsible or 95% - it is vital we get control of our pollution, waste, and irrisponsible use of resources. If these 30,000 scientists and politicians get their way, I fear the world will see it as a green flag to go back to the gas guzzling water wasting resource raping ways we have seen for the past 150 years.

Its non sensical. The only analagy I can come up with at this late and drunken hour is toilets. All the water that comes in to our homes ( in the industrialised world) is grade A drinking water. This water has gone through expensive, and intensive cleaning and processing. Most of this water goes to flush the toilet. This just makes no sense! All that energy and money is literally being flushed down the pan. We need to rethink how we do things, to reduce energy use, pollution, and to reduce expenditure. Reducing CO2 is a side affect of being a responsible human being. A few scientists with a sense of political grandeur could blow a lot more than some lefty whacko ideology.

Jason Harris

12-13-2008, 06:45 PM

Let's not be too hasty about making this a dem/repub issue. After all, the last two political candidates both "believed" in climate change. As does Arnold S. in CA, etc. And a lot of people on ST are no doubt independents or libertarians politically as well. In fact, with no scientific polling available on this issue, I bet there are more libertarians on ST than the nation in general. Just a feeling.

Brandon Sullivan

12-13-2008, 06:47 PM

Poll added! hope its not too late

Damon Poole

12-13-2008, 07:06 PM

I hope they clean Al Bore's clock! Between him, Hansen, and the IPCC, the science of Climatology has been ruined by a combined perversion of Ecology and Political Science. Natural Climate Change is a scientific fact. Completely Anthropogenic Global Warming is a total science fiction hoax!

Jason Harris

12-13-2008, 08:09 PM

Damon, you forgot about NASA, they're part of the conspiracy too:

"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

OMG, it's even on their mission page! Al Gore must have paid them off with all that hybrid vehicle money!http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

See that phrase "most of the warming" is from "human activities"--better go protest against NASA ASAP.
Whoa, you better bust NOAA also:

"Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
OMG, the conspiracy is so far reaching, who will save the OIL companies now? Wow, good thing there's no competitive other fuel right now, whew.
What a relief Al Gore hasn't won yet where it counts. Just a lot of scientists, and how sly of them not to mention him.

Seriously though, since most people are voting that it's mainly a natural cause, where does this belief come? Where is the evidence? Others have already shown the carbon from volcanoes isn't the culprit, so alas. I used to think ok, maybe the solar factor was involved, but studies have shown that we should be cooling if it were up to the sun.
---
"over the last 20 years, solar activity has been slowly declining, which should have led to a drop in global temperatures if the theory was correct."
--
but it's not: "A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen."
Wait, I get it, the sun is in on the conspiracy too! Dang, game over.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm

Ryan McGinnis

12-13-2008, 10:03 PM

The only analagy I can come up with at this late and drunken hour is toilets. All the water that comes in to our homes ( in the industrialised world) is grade A drinking water. This water has gone through expensive, and intensive cleaning and processing. Most of this water goes to flush the toilet. This just makes no sense!

Personally, I like that my toilet water is cleaned and processed -- if they took that away, I'd have to move my Aquafina bootlegging operation back to the creek.

Dan Robinson

12-13-2008, 10:09 PM

There needs to be an option on the poll for "I haven't formed an opinion yet". We had a poll similar to this earlier this year, BTW, which indicated that most still had an open mind:

http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/showthread.php?t=13945&highlight=poll

Brandon Sullivan

12-13-2008, 10:43 PM

Damon Poole

12-14-2008, 11:24 AM

I didn't forget NASA, that's Hansen's employer. My disbelief is in the Global Warming hype being put out by Al Bore, Hansen, Heidi Cullen, and their ilk. My skepticism is backed by many hours in college studying Astronomy, Biology, Computer Science, Earth Science, Oceanography, Physical and Historical Geology, Physical Geography, Weather and Climate, and Natural Hazards. These studies taught me that there are many types of forcings involved in Climate Change, other than the AGW garbage being forced down people's throats by Self Appointed Saviors of the Stupid in Society like Earth Share, The Ad Council, and so on.

Additionally, my degree is in Mass Communication, which makes me well aware of the sheer ignorance and bias in the name of profits for companies like GE and NBC, which hype AGW stories for profits. Fortunately, not many people are buying the whole thing as NBC's profits are through the floor. The Weather Channel's Environmental department, including Heidi Cullen was axed due to the falling profits.

So, Jason, it's not only big oil that's in it for the money. It happens on BOTH sides. Just ask Al Bore, hopefully, the Judge will. The question is, will the sodium pentathal shot work?
Time will tell.

Damon, you forgot about NASA, they're part of the conspiracy too:

"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

OMG, it's even on their mission page! Al Gore must have paid them off with all that hybrid vehicle money!http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

See that phrase "most of the warming" is from "human activities"--better go protest against NASA ASAP.
Whoa, you better bust NOAA also:

"Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
OMG, the conspiracy is so far reaching, who will save the OIL companies now? Wow, good thing there's no competitive other fuel right now, whew.
What a relief Al Gore hasn't won yet where it counts. Just a lot of scientists, and how sly of them not to mention him.

Seriously though, since most people are voting that it's mainly a natural cause, where does this belief come? Where is the evidence? Others have already shown the carbon from volcanoes isn't the culprit, so alas. I used to think ok, maybe the solar factor was involved, but studies have shown that we should be cooling if it were up to the sun.
---
"over the last 20 years, solar activity has been slowly declining, which should have led to a drop in global temperatures if the theory was correct."
--
but it's not: "A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen."
Wait, I get it, the sun is in on the conspiracy too! Dang, game over.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm

Jason Harris

12-14-2008, 01:07 PM

And what about NOAA and the sun? And don't forget the geologists monitoring glaciers. Making the glaciers are part of the conspiracy too along with the sun? And look, Peru must be in the conspiracy too:
"Quelccaya in southern Peru, the world's largest tropical ice cap, is retreating at about 60 meters (200 feet) a year, up from six meters (20 feet) a year in the 1960s, Thompson said.

Melting is also visible in the other Andean countries — Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.

In Peru, home to 70 percent of Earth's tropical glaciers, the Andes mountains have lost at least 22 percent of their glacier area since 1970 and the melt is speeding up, according to Peru's National Resources Institute, INRENA, a government agency.
Rock shows through lavishly snow-covered mountains throughout the Peruvian Andes. The Broggi glacier has disappeared altogether. Ice caves once popular with tourists are gone.

On Cordillera Blanca, which has 35 percent of Peru's glaciers, Marco Zapata, head of INRENA's glaciology unit, trudges up a barren, rocky mountain slope that until recently was covered by a centuries-old layer of ice. He points to a small, white mound on the retreating Pastoruri glacier, 5,100 meters (17,000 feet) above sea level."
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/11/america/LA-GEN-Peru-Glacier-Retreat.php

Also, shouldn't the poll be changed to "modern global warming"? Otherwise, seems like a straw man poll. Also, the word "disregard" implies a moral charge rather than a simple cause/effect. Why does the issue need to be loaded with moral and political judgments? You can believe in climate change as a reality and look forward to it: more CAPE?
Frankly, "belief" is a problem. If you (one), doesn't want to have to make any changes you could always have the mindset, "ok, I'm just going to dismiss whatever I disagree with as part of this deep-reaching conspiracy, so all these satellite measurements and ice-core samples, heck, what do they prove anyway? bogus." How many people have actually changed their minds based on evidence? I have yet to hear anyone offer a consensus of peer-reviewed scholarly sources from climatologists using the scientific method disagreeing.

to put it simply, there's overwhelming evidence for human produced greenhouse gasses warming the earth as NOAA states "There is no scientific debate on this point."

Meanwhile, NATO is debating how to handle the power struggle for the resources resulting from melting;
--
The 150-page manifesto for a new Nato, penned by five former chiefs of staff and senior Nato commanders from the US, UK, Germany, France and the Netherlands, also points to the likely friction in the Arctic as a result of climate change.

The Arctic thaw has already created "minor tensions" between Russia and Nato member Norway over fishing rights around the Spitsbergen archipelago. "The islands of Spitsbergen ... have large deposits of gas and oil that are currently locked under a frozen continental shelf," the document states.

"If global warming were to allow this to become a viable source of energy, a serious conflict could emerge between Russia and Norway." This "potential crisis" would draw in the US, Canada and Denmark "competing for large and viable energy resources and precious raw materials".
--
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/10/eu.climatechange

Rob Wadsworth

12-14-2008, 01:28 PM

Al Gore and his carnivorous crew would probably do more good for the threat that exists by getting their rich bee-hinds out of the way of the press, and let the 30k scientists hash it out with him for real.

What does Al Gore have to lose - just maybe - his credibility? Maybe that is why he is running away from this challenge - eh? The thought of having to give back that big, shiny medal is too much - I guess. Or what does the 30k have to lose - except their cover stories? Not likely. Having/allowing Gore - to continue hiding behind his Nobel Prize - just doesn't cut it with me. People want to believe in Gore because they are enthralled with his pseudo achievement in the global politics of climatology.
Clinton must have told him 'I'll make you famous so I could look that much better when we stand together for pictures! (LOL!Howl!)
Politics can be the most ugly game there is. C'mon Gore - your mommy's skirt won't help you now!
Just some observations...

Damon Poole

12-14-2008, 04:16 PM

Anybody who studies Earth Science, or any scientific discipline related to it, knows that glaciers have always advanced and retreated over geologic time. This has always been due to climatic variability, including the Peruvian Glaciers, The Arctic, and Antarctica. That doesn't mean that AGW is solely responsible. It is also known that the Sun, and our position related to the sun, has a very large and measurable influence on our climate, as well as our oceans.

As far as the NOAA links you mentioned, the FAQ's are straight out of the IPCC script. IPCC is a political organization that admits that it doesn't do any real scientific research. It was IPCC that started the whole "There is no scientific debate" issue. Gore drank the Kool Aid, and is taking the credit for saying it. Sound familiar? It's not the first time that's happened.

That by itself should make any IPCC findings highly suspect. In addition, computer models are good, but they are subject to errors in data and programming which can cause huge problems with the forecasts they produce. Why else haven't computers completely replaced operational forecasters? It's because a human forecaster can beat the best of computer models. This is because of experience that cannot be programmed into models.

Finally, as far as NATO goes, they're talking about Geopolitics, which provides a much larger base for AGW than Geoscience.

Ryan McGinnis

12-14-2008, 04:37 PM

I didn't forget NASA, that's Hansen's employer. My disbelief is in the Global Warming hype being put out by Al Bore, Hansen, Heidi Cullen, and their ilk.

As a student in Mass Communications, I would hope you would realize how difficult it is to take anyone seriously who thinks that it is clever to "rename" people they disagree with.

Paul Austin

12-15-2008, 12:01 AM

Dave Gallaher

12-15-2008, 12:33 AM

I just read all the arguments in this thread. Taken together, they provide solid and irrefutable evidence that humans are the causation of Verbal Warming.

Mike Smith

12-15-2008, 12:39 AM

As the 'blank' sun continues...
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/

And world temperatures continue failing to warm for ten years....
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/to:2009

We learn that total sea ice has not changed significantly since 1979...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/14/global-sea-ice-trend-since-1979-surprising/#more-4540

while the Associated Press says in a story filed today, Mother Nature, of course, is oblivious to the federal government's machinations. Ironically, 2008 is on pace to be a slightly cooler year in a steadily rising temperature trend line. Experts say it's thanks to a La Nina weather variation. While skeptics are already using it as evidence of some kind of cooling trend, it actually illustrates how fast the world is warming. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081214/D952LKP00.html

Of course the link to the Hadley data above shows anything but a "steadily rising temperature trend line." And, only in climate science would the recent cooling illustrate "how fast the world is warming."

Scott Weberpal

12-15-2008, 02:17 PM

Here's the actual petition with over 30,000 signatures from scientists. 9,000 of the signatures are from PhD's.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Dave Gallaher

12-15-2008, 02:47 PM

Robert Dewey

12-15-2008, 03:15 PM

I don't think they actually intend on winning... it's more of a statement.

Scott Weberpal

12-15-2008, 03:23 PM

Well, the good thing about this is that to win the suit, they will have to legally prove intent to defraud on behalf of Al and others who share his opinion. If they can categorically prove that GW is a non-issue regarding human activities, then the issue will be put to rest.

Personally, I don't think they can prove fraud. And if they can't, then the whole lawsuit is just another public relations hype.

The petition itself is not to sue Al Gore, the petition is basically to say they don't agree with the 1997 Kyoto Agreement that CO2 is causing a rise in global temperature and needs to be reversed.

Scott Weberpal

12-15-2008, 04:42 PM

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

"CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

Damon Poole

12-15-2008, 07:41 PM

All in good satire when it comes to Al. All in good satire. Especially since he and his pals have done such a good job renaming, and intimidating skeptics who disagree with his hype.

As a student in Mass Communications, I would hope you would realize how difficult it is to take anyone seriously who thinks that it is clever to "rename" people they disagree with.

Dennis Sherrod

12-15-2008, 08:46 PM

I am pretty impressed with the poll on this one. I had felt I was one of the few people for years saying the idea that this Global Warming stuff was more hoopla and a normal event with some minor input from us, than us totally causing the great warm up. I guess one of the reasons we hear so much about it, are that the ones thinking it is all us are the ones mainly speaking up and those of us who disagree, do not say much about it.

Dave Gallaher

12-15-2008, 11:24 PM

I don't think they actually intend on winning... it's more of a statement.

Won't it risk being classified as a frivolous lawsuit in this case? I guess if publicity is the primary goal, it is effective.

For me (a non-scientist), the whole issue is entirely undecided, as neither side has been able to be utterly convincing.

Jason Harris

12-16-2008, 08:15 AM

Here's one thing we should all be able to agree on: how you vote on a poll
is not climatological evidence.

Meanwhile, here's a new article out on ice loss (just today):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28249708/
--
WASHINGTON - More than 2 trillion tons of land ice in Greenland, Antarctica and Alaska have melted since 2003, according to new NASA satellite data that show the latest signs of what scientists say is global warming.
[. . .]
Scientists studying sea ice will announce that parts of the Arctic north of Alaska were 9 to 10 degrees warmer this past fall, a strong early indication of what researchers call the Arctic amplification effect. That's when the Arctic warms faster than predicted, and warming there is accelerating faster than elsewhere on the globe.
[. . .]
As sea ice melts, the Arctic waters absorb more heat in the summer, having lost the reflective powers of vast packs of white ice. That absorbed heat is released into the air in the fall. That has led to autumn temperatures in the last several years that are six to 10 degrees warmer than they were in the 1980s, said research scientist Julienne Stroeve at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo.

That's a strong and early impact of global warming, she said.

"The pace of change is starting to outstrip our ability to keep up with it, in terms of our understanding of it," said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., a co-author of the Arctic amplification study.

[. . .]
A second study suggests even larger amounts of frozen methane are trapped in lakebeds and sea bottoms around Siberia and they are starting to bubble to the surface in some spots in alarming amounts, said Igor Semiletov, a professor at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. In late summer, Semiletov found methane bubbling up from parts of the East Siberian Sea and Laptev Sea at levels that were 10 times higher than they were in the mid-1990s, he said based on a study this summer.

The amounts of methane in the region could dramatically increase global warming if they get released, he said.
-------
So, remember it's trends that climate are concerned with. Every year does not have to be hottest than the previous one to create a trend. Don't forget about higher lows too. I know it's funny to many people to talk about climate change during winter, and for some people it almost seems as though winter has to cease to exist for them to believe in climate change. I guess for those who believe NASA is part of a conspiracy, all satellite data will be discounted.
Damon, maybe you need to add the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., and the University of Alaska (maybe all universities that study climate?) to the conspiracy list--oh, and of course Russia's methane.

Mike Smith

12-16-2008, 09:34 AM

Here's one thing we should all be able to agree on: how you vote on a poll is not climatological evidence.

Meanwhile, here's a new article out on ice loss (just today):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28249708/

It is correct that a poll is not climate science, but neither is an MSNBC article.

You are contending that Alaska ice is melting faster after one of its coldest summers in history?

From the Anchorage Daily News, www.adn.com/news/environment/story/518517.html

Summer has been one of Alaska's coldest
High temperatures this season were 3rd lowest on record
By CRAIG MEDRED
cmedred@adn.com
Published: September 7th, 2008 12:04 AM

Summer is officially over in Alaska, and if you got out in the sun to enjoy both days of it you were lucky.

Those were the two July days the temperature at the offices of the National Weather Service in Anchorage hit 70 degrees or better.

"Those temperatures occurred at the beginning of the month (of July) and were immediately followed by a long stretch of cool and wet weather.

"With only two days above 70 degrees this year, that sets a new record for the fewest days to reach 70,'' the weather-watching agency reported Friday.

Add to the lack of heat and sunshine what the agency calls "an astonishing 77%" of days colder than normal, and you get the picture.

This summer was every bit as bad as you thought it was.

The article you cite says the arctic is "melting fast." I say, "With record cold?" This makes no sense, especially in view of the contention that it is worse "north of Alaska." Here is the sea ice data: www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
which shows nothing extraordinary occurred this autumn.

Anthony Watts has done an extraordinary (and entertaining) job debunking some of the Siberian "warming" referred to in the MSNBC article, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/15/giss-noaa-ghcn-and-the-odd-russian-temperature-anomaly-its-all-pipes/ .

The article about increased melting, as excerpted, does not pass the meteorology 101 test (which should be required of any climate "science" article) in that it talks about "warming" when actual measured temperatures and measured related parameters (in this case, sea ice) show cooling.

There are other studies that show the ice is now growing (for example, wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/27/glaciers-in-norway-alaska-growing-again/ ).

One does not have to believe in conspiracies to believe the IPCC's global warming hypothesis is deeply flawed.

Jason Harris

12-16-2008, 09:55 AM

Mike, you're pretty consistent with both the cherrypicking and the straw man fallacy. I'm not saying MSNBC is an authority--but the sources they're quoting from are--the very agencies in charge of monitoring snow and ice, from both universities and the government. It's not an article specific to MSNBC anyway, but the Associated Press. Did you read the entire article? It's the trend with alaska that matters. The article noted that Alaska had some heavy snowfalls that reduced the rate of melting, but that overall it's still on a trend of melting. That's why net loss of ice and snow statistics matter:
"The news was better for Alaska. After a precipitous drop in 2005, land ice increased slightly in 2008 because of large winter snowfalls, Luthcke said. Since 2003, when the NASA satellite started taking measurements, Alaska has lost 400 billion tons of land ice." So yes, Alaska can have from year-to-year colder or warmer weather but what matters is the larger patterns--and that's the loss of "400 billion tons of land ice." From year to year it's just weather. Decades and centuries allows us to see climatic trends.

Mike Smith

12-16-2008, 10:08 AM

Jason,

I was commenting on what you posted.

Mike

MatthewCarman

12-16-2008, 11:45 AM

Jason I would not be surprised if all of the ice melted from Alaska or Greenland etc. Remember Greenland used to be all Green and at one time had no snow. That there proves that our planet has gone through this warming and cooling period before. Remember the global warming in the medieval period before the little ice age? It was very warm then and how do we know it was not as warm or warmer then? Then came another global cooling period with the little ice age that killed hundreds of thousands because it was to cold. I think we will be heading into global cooling before our planet becomes to warm.

Aaron Kennedy

12-16-2008, 11:56 AM

I think we will be heading into global cooling before our planet becomes to warm.

LOL. Not when the sun goes red giant ;)

Jason Harris

12-16-2008, 12:47 PM

Matt and Mike: this issue of past warming/cooling cycles goes to the heart of what I don't understand about climate change discussions like this. Of course there have been other cycles, but what's the mechanism for warming right now? Scientists have already established that we continued to warm in a period where the sun would have suggested cooling (solar minimum)--which eliminates the sun as a variable for the current warming. (see earlier posts as well as what's below). Let's not talk past the specific data or only focus on one small detail and then pretend the rest of what's there doesn't matter.

We're going in circles. Just seems like there's no piece of evidence so many folks will accept.

I'm sorry that people can't trust the credentials of people who monitor our planet and get rockets into space, but in my book a climatologist has more expertise on these subjects, just like I'd go to a dermatologist if I had a seven-headed dog growing on my thumb (or maybe a sorcerer, heh).

But again, look the data indicates that when you factor in the natural influence--take the sun in this case--it's only "25%" to account for the warming over the last century:

--
Over the past century, Earth's average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit). Solar heating accounts for about 0.15 C, or 25 percent, of this change, according to computer modeling results published by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies researcher David Rind in 2004. Earth's climate depends on the delicate balance between incoming solar radiation, outgoing thermal radiation and the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Even small changes in these parameters can affect climate. Around 30 percent of the solar energy that strikes Earth is reflected back into space. Clouds, atmospheric aerosols, snow, ice, sand, ocean surface and even rooftops play a role in deflecting the incoming rays. The remaining 70 percent of solar energy is absorbed by land, ocean, and atmosphere.
---
Here are some more important parts of the article (from May 2008 involving Nasa studies): I encourage everyone to go to the link to read the rest--something for everyone since it talks about nonhuman influences and further study going on.
---
"For the last 20 to 30 years, we believe greenhouse gases have been the dominant influence on recent climate change," said Robert Cahalan, climatologist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.

For the past three decades NASA scientists have investigated the unique relationship between the sun and Earth. Using space-based tools, like the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE), they have studied how much solar energy illuminates Earth, and explored what happens to that energy once it penetrates the atmosphere. The amount of energy that reaches Earth's outer atmosphere is called the total solar irradiance. Total solar irradiance is variable over many different timescales, ranging from seconds to centuries due to changes in solar activity.

The sun goes through roughly an 11-year cycle of activity, from stormy to quiet and back again. Solar activity often occurs near sunspots, dark regions on the sun caused by concentrated magnetic fields. The solar irradiance measurement is much higher during solar maximum, when sunspot cycle and solar activity is high, versus solar minimum, when the sun is quiet and there are usually no sunspots.

"The fluctuations in the solar cycle impacts Earth's global temperature by about 0.1 degree Celsius, slightly hotter during solar maximum and cooler during solar minimum," said Thomas Woods, solar scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder. "The sun is currently at its minimum, and the next solar maximum is expected in 2012."
---
Are there any climatologists on Stormtrack? Maybe they could bring a lot to this thread or explain things more clearly. But again, the data indicates you cannot blame the sun for the majority (75%) of recent warming this last century and that rather starting in 2012 we should expect a natural enhancement of human-influenced climate change.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080512120523.htm

MatthewCarman

12-16-2008, 02:37 PM

Jason Harris

12-16-2008, 02:58 PM

One more time: what is the mechanism?

twarner

12-16-2008, 11:50 PM

My question is this - is global warming really bad in the long run, especailly when you consider the population growth of the world. There is alot of land that is not very hospitable to human living and extracting natural resources.

2nd thing is this world will die sooner or later (which doesn't mean we shouldn't take care of it), but the only way there will be any legacy of this planet is to develop technology of galactic travel and exploration. But it looks like our politicians are more worried about bailouts than science.

Olivier Staiger

12-17-2008, 02:03 AM

hey btw, I was at the North Pole last July 25, on a russian icebreaker, and there was still lots of ice, no way a normal ship could have gotten there , see images and videoclips here :

http://www.klipsi.ch/at_Northpole/at_Northpole.htm

now, we had EXTREMELY good weather at the North Pole, as you can tell from the photos. All days sailing north and sailing back south were in fog or stratus and clouds and overcast and more fog, except on the day we are at 90°N ( and on eclipse day, too) , we had unbelievable luck with clear skies and almost no wind. Our expedition leader said this was his 14th trip to the North Pole and he never had this kind of lucky sunny weather. But it was just ONE day. He as been at the North Pole 3 times this year and only once was it so clear, on our lucky trip.

joel ewing

12-17-2008, 08:38 AM

I didn't vote, as I don't believe that I'm qualified to jump into this debate. However, some unsolicited advice to the gentleman who cited the United Nations...I wouldn't trust the United Nations for anything. Period.

Jason Harris

12-17-2008, 10:39 AM

Not surprisingly, no one has come up with the major cause for recent warming that they have evidence for that is an alternative to the human influence. I could keep repeating "what's the mechanism" and still get the empty void.

Meanwhile, Olivier, your observation of ice at the North Pole doesn't discount anything (though pretty interesting trip to take): the argument isn't that there's no ice there now, it's that it's melting faster than predicted (2013-2030 instead of 2100 for ice-free summers), as these articles that came out in 2007 and now Dec. 16, 2008 explain--notice the Navy is in on this too as well as the US Snow and Ice Research Center:

--[earlier article, 2007]
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.

Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.

Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.

[. . .]
Professor Peter Wadhams from Cambridge University, UK, is an expert on Arctic ice. He has used sonar data collected by Royal Navy submarines to show that the volume loss is outstripping even area withdrawal, which is in agreement with the model result of Professor Maslowski.

"Some models have not been taking proper account of the physical processes that go on," he commented.

"The ice is thinning faster than it is shrinking; and some modellers have been assuming the ice was a rather thick slab.
[. . .]
In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly
Professor Peter Wadhams
"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.

"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."
[. . .]
The US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) collects the observational data on the extent of Arctic sea ice, delivering regular status bulletins. Its research scientist Dr Mark Serreze was asked to give one of the main lectures here at this year's AGU Fall Meeting.

Discussing the possibility for an open Arctic ocean in summer months, he told the meeting: "A few years ago, even I was thinking 2050, 2070, out beyond the year 2100, because that's what our models were telling us. But as we've seen, the models aren't fast enough right now; we are losing ice at a much more rapid rate.

"My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm
--
And yes, of course the media hypes the more threatening date: 2013 instead of 2030. That's what sells papers.
"Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'" By the way, Olivier's pics clearly demonstrate the North Pole is as comfortable as any unheated swimming pool. :)

here's the more recent article:
"Scientists have found the first unequivocal evidence that the Arctic region is warming at a faster rate than the rest of the world at least a decade before it was predicted to happen."
[. . .]
The Arctic Ocean warmed more than usual because heat from the sun was absorbed more easily by the dark areas of open water compared to the highly reflective surface of a frozen sea. "Autumn 2008 saw very strong surface temperature anomalies over the areas where the sea ice was lost," Dr Stroeve told The Independent ahead of her presentation today.

"The observed autumn warming that we've seen over the Arctic Ocean, not just this year but over the past five years or so, represents Arctic amplification, the notion that rises in surface air temperatures in response to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will be larger in the Arctic than elsewhere over the globe," she said. "The warming climate is leading to more open water in the Arctic Ocean. As these open water areas develop through spring and summer, they absorb most of the sun's energy, leading to ocean warming.

"In autumn, as the sun sets in the Arctic, most of the heat that was gained in the ocean during summer is released back to the atmosphere, acting to warm the atmosphere. It is this heat-release back to the atmosphere that gives us Arctic amplification."

Temperature readings for this October were significantly higher than normal across the entire Arctic region – between 3C and 5C above average – but some areas were dramatically higher. In the Beaufort Sea, north of Alaska, for instance, near-surface air temperatures were more than 7C higher than normal for this time of year. The scientists believe the only reasonable explanation for such high autumn readings is that the ocean heat accumulated during the summer because of the loss of sea ice is being released back into the atmosphere from the sea before winter sea ice has chance to reform.

"One of the reasons we focus on Arctic amplification is that it is a good test of greenhouse warming theory. Even our earliest climate models were telling us that we should see this Arctic amplification emerge as we lose the summer ice cover," Dr Stroeve said. "This is exactly what we are not starting to see in the observations. Simply put, it's a case of we hate to say we told you so, but we did," she added.

Computer models have also predicted totally ice-free summers in the Arctic by 2070, but many scientists now believe that the first ice-free summer could occur far earlier than this, perhaps within the next 20 years.
---
from:
just yesterday 912-16-08)--
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/arctic-melt-passes-the-point-of--no-return-1128197.html

Dan Robinson

12-17-2008, 11:03 AM

What was the mechanism for the past warming/cooling cycles?

Ryan McGinnis

12-17-2008, 11:48 AM

What is Earths average temperature? How would we know when the earliest we would have reliable data would be the early 1900's and our planet has been around for billions of years? We may know the average for the last 100-150 years but beyond that how would we know what the average was? Maybe this is average for the US. Like I said it has been very warm before and I believe Earth has gone through warm spells just as warm as this if not warmer. I am waiting for Global Cooling. That will close this arguement for good.

These are all good questions. The idea is to ask questions like this, acknowledge that you don't know the answers, and then find books, journals, and documentaries to answer these questions. If you ask these questions and then invent a bunch of answers in your head and end the quest there, then it is likely that you will rarely arrive at conclusions that will be useful to your or others.

Jason Harris

12-17-2008, 11:52 AM

The sun and volcanoes were responsible for past cycles. That's why it's important that data indicates the sun (which has been at a MINIMUM while warming has continued!] and volcanoes (look at Brian Emfinger's graph on page 2 when he points out "We release more CO2 per year than the years that included the Tambora and Krakatau eruptions...") aren't the issue now but green-house gases from people. Read the previous articles. We're going in circles.

I give up. Folks literally will just ignore what they don't want to believe. Here's the article from earlier when I made the mechanism comment with another quote that sums things up:

--
Before the Industrial Age, the sun and volcanic eruptions were the major influences on Earth's climate change. Earth warmed and cooled in cycles. Major cool periods were ice ages, with the most recent ending about 11,000 years ago.

"Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene,” said Cahalan. “Over recent decades, however, we have moved into a human-dominated climate that some have termed the Anthropocene. The major change in Earth's climate is now really dominated by human activity, which has never happened before."

[the guy's a NASA climatologist, and climatologists have the most authority on this subject]
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080512120523.htm

And since it seems to prove impossible for people to accept those studies, maybe pollution studies are better to focus on as just killers:

--
from national geographic:

---
"Air pollution is estimated to cause approximately two million premature deaths worldwide per year," said Michal Krzyzanowski, an air quality adviser at the WHO Regional Office for Europe.

Krzyzanowski worked with WHO to look at costs and casualties of pollution across the globe. He helped the group develop new air quality guidelines that set out global goals to reduce deaths from pollution.

Deadly Air

Damaging air pollutants include sulfur dioxide, particulate matter—a mixture of extremely small particles and water droplets—ozone, and nitrogen dioxide. China accounts for roughly one-third of the global total for these pollutants, according to Krzyzanowski. (See a map of China.)

In neighboring India, air pollution is believed to cause 527,700 fatalities a year. In the United States, premature deaths from toxic air pollutants are estimated at 41,200 annually.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070709-china-pollution.html

Damon Poole

12-17-2008, 05:38 PM

Check your knowledge-
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html

Brian Emfinger

12-17-2008, 06:13 PM

I give up. Folks literally will just ignore what they don't want to believe.
You should have done that days ago.. as I did!

Some of the comments in this thread are simply amazing. I think a lot of it has to do with GW becoming a political issue and Al Gore's involvement obviously helped that along. Once this got into the political issue world people began to lose reasoning and common sense. I think at this point I don't really see any scenario where the causes behind GW will be believed by some - even with the ever increasing, painfully obvious, and incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. I suppose its easier to live oblivious to the obvious rather than to be open to the possibilities that our world may become a much more difficult place to live in...maybe within many of our lives.

Mike Smith

12-17-2008, 06:46 PM

To Brian and Jason,

Please read this and then tell me you believe it is scientifically proven that the sun was not behind the warming that appearently ended in the late 1990's. Here is the article (citing NASA by the way) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/16/earths-magnetic-field-has-massive-breach-scientists-baffled/

And, if you tell me the 'models' have this correct, please point me to the specific model that forecast the magnetic reversal.

I think anyone would take NASA at its word that this has everyone baffled. Taken with the Ap index tanking and the two-year delay of Cycle 24, I'm surprised that anyone can consider the sun a virtual non-player in climate change.

I respectfully believe you have science backward. In science, a hypothesis is advanced. It is then reviewed and tested. If it passes the testing, it becomes a theory. But, if anyone can find one example where the theory does not hold up, the theory/hypothesis is rejected. It the role of the person or entity advancing the hypothesis to defend it.

In 1988, Jim Hansen went before Congress and presented a hypothesis involving global warming. He made specific forecasts. His forecast of CO2 increase ("Scenario A") was quite good. This temperature forecast, after doing well the first few years, was far too high. Hypothesis rejected.

Subsequent forecasts (as recently as the IPCC's 2004 version) have also been too high, with the most recent outside the 95% confidence interval on the cold side. Again, hypothesis rejected. (c.f., http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ipcc-central-tendency-of-2ccentury-still-rejected/ ).

Jason, you claim the warming has continued through a solar minimum but you cite no evidence. If you cite the GISS numbers, fine, but I would advise extreme caution. They have been widely questioned for what appear to be good reasons (at least to me) and are often an outlier.

On the other hand... The Hadley Centre's numbers (to which I linked earlier) show cooling. So do the RSS and UAH numbers. These three tend to move together, so I trust them far more than NASA GISS. Cooling may indeed be occurring with the lessening of solar activity.

The scientific burden is not on me or on any other skeptic. It is on Dr. Hansen and the IPCC to show their theory works 100% of the time. Otherwise, hypothesis rejected and the experimentation and quest for knowledge continues.

Mike

Dan Robinson

12-17-2008, 06:48 PM

Folks literally will just ignore what they don't want to believe.

And this is exactly the attitude that alienates many who are presently AGW-neutral. There is plenty of evidence and support in the scientific community against AGW for a reasonable person to have doubts:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

On a personal level, I'm simply interested in the truth -but I feel that there is currently too much uncertainty and politicization to make an educated conclusion on the issue. So I'm in a wait-and-see mode.

Brian Emfinger

12-18-2008, 04:08 AM

To Brian and Jason,

Please read this and then tell me you believe it is scientifically proven that the sun was not behind the warming that appearently ended in the late 1990's. Here is the article (citing NASA by the way) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/16/earths-magnetic-field-has-massive-breach-scientists-baffled/

The sun is the biggest player by far in everything to do with climate...there is certainly is no disputing that. Obviously, just as our temperatures are somewhat lower/moderated now because of solar minimum - they were higher during solar max. Just because the temperatures went up because of the solar max doesn't mean they weren't enhanced because of GW.

My biggest gripe is that people continue to deny our increasing of CO2 well beyond the normal cycles that are seen in Earth's past - are from human activity. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Increasing of CO2 means more solar radiation is trapped than otherwise would have been thus temperatures are higher than they would have been. The increasing CO2 (above the normal) when looking at Earth's history (through many different methods - ice cores, etc) is only increasing through one possible source - human activity. Things would be fine if the extra CO2 was being absorbed by some source (ie the Oceans) but they aren't or they aren't to a level thats enough to keep CO2 at a constant amount.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/images/co2_concentrations-lg.gif

Just look at the history. I don't especially care about the temperature aspect of the above graph at this point but look at the CO2. The cycles are there plain to see. What cycle is responsible for the significant increase in CO2?

I am not 100% sure what effect the increase CO2 will have BUT it seems likely temperatures will rise and climates will change. I believe that Earth's cycles/climates are more fragile than we think and there is just no telling how GW will play out. I suppose a wait and see approach at this point is acceptable. There is not much at this point we could do anyway even if we all believed without reservation that the main aspects of GW are true.

Mike Smith

12-18-2008, 06:52 AM

Brian,

Excellent post.

This skeptic certainly believes that additional CO2 has some effect on temperatures, but it appears to be much smaller than originally hypothesized.

If, as an example, the effect of doubling CO2 is an increase of 1° in 100 years it would likely be a net benefit to mankind.

If the sun continues in its current funk one can legitimately be concerned about a Maunder-type minimum as some are predicting. That might lead to extreme cooling that would be far worse for humanity than the effects of warming. The increased CO2 might mitigate that type of catastrophic cooling.

I wish to make clear, I am not predicting a Maunder minimum as that is not my area of expertise. What I am saying there is a level of concern among some experts and my sense is no one really knows.

If we take some of the proposed measures against global warming (putting iron in the oceans to absorb CO2 at a greater rate or the proposal to put tiny mirrors in space) and cooling is the problem, we will have made a bad situation worse.

So, it is vital we treat this with all of the scientific rigor it deserves.

Mike

Brian Emfinger

12-18-2008, 07:38 AM

I was going to add this on to my last post but it got too long:

It all comes down to CO2. Do you believe the increases in CO2 are from a natural source or human activity? If from a natural source, what source? If you believe then that CO2 is increasing from human activity then what is the likely result? Higher CO2 = Higher Temperatures. Look at the above image... CO2 and Temperature are obviously linked. Now look at a zoomed in view:

I have added my extremely un-scientific / rough estimate of where the past cycles seem to indicate where the CO2 and Temperature levels should be.

http://www.realclearwx.com/images/co2zoom.jpg

The main question I have is when will the temperatures "catch up" to the increase in CO2 or is it possible that the increase in CO2 is simply preventing the natural cool down. The only problem there is that we are continuing to increase the CO2 levels so it seems an almost certainty that at some point in the near future the increased CO2 will "overwhelm the system" and temperatures will increase.

Also I go back to this for any doubters of human activity causing the CO2 rise:

http://www.carbonify.com/images/atmospheric-carbon-dioxide.gif
IF the cause of the CO2 rise were anything other than human activity then it wouldn't look like that. It would be very variable. Volcano eruptions and whatever else are variable non-consistent events and thus while the overall tendency of the graph (if it was non human related) could show increase - it definitely would not increase at such a consistent pace. The graph instead shows a constant increase (although the CO2 level is increasing faster as time passes). Only human activity which is constantly releasing CO2 can make that graph. The constant accelerating increase also matches nicely with mans increasing releases of CO2.

Mike Smith

12-18-2008, 02:11 PM

Computer models have also predicted totally ice-free summers in the Arctic by 2070, but many scientists now believe that the first ice-free summer could occur far earlier than this, perhaps within the next 20 years.

For comments on the models and their accuracy, please see (published yesterday):

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/gavin-spins-with-spaghetti-diagrams/

Here are Steve McIntyre's thoughts on the models' skill forecasting tropical temperatures: www.climateaudit.org/?p=4687#comments

Dave Gallaher

12-18-2008, 02:21 PM

And this is exactly the attitude that alienates many who are presently AGW-neutral. There is plenty of evidence and support in the scientific community against AGW for a reasonable person to have doubts:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

On a personal level, I'm simply interested in the truth -but I feel that there is currently too much uncertainty and politicization to make an educated conclusion on the issue. So I'm in a wait-and-see mode.

Couldn't have said this better...

Jim Saueressig

12-19-2008, 11:14 AM

CNN Meteorologist: Manmade Global Warming Theory 'Arrogant' (http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081218205953.aspx)

Unprecedented snow in Las Vegas has some scratching their heads – how can there be global warming with this unusual cold and snowy weather?

CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers had never bought into the notion that man can alter the climate and the Vegas snowstorm didn’t impact his opinion. Myers, an American Meteorological Society certified meteorologist, explained on CNN’s Dec. 18 “Lou Dobbs Tonight” that the whole idea is arrogant and mankind was in danger of dying from other natural events more so than global warming.

“You know, to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant,” Myers said. “Mother Nature is so big, the world is so big, the oceans are so big – I think we’re going to die from a lack of fresh water or we’re going to die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure.”

Myers is the second CNN meteorologist to challenge the global warming conventions common in the media. He also said trying to determine patterns occurring in the climate would be difficult based on such a short span.

“But this is like, you know you said – in your career – my career has been 22 years long,” Myers said. “That’s a good career in TV, but talking about climate – it’s like having a car for three days and saying, ‘This is a great car.’ Well, yeah – it was for three days, but maybe in days five, six and seven it won’t be so good. And that’s what we’re doing here.”

“We have 100 years worth of data, not millions of years that the world’s been around,” Myers continued.

Dr. Jay Lehr, an expert on environmental policy, told “Lou Dobbs Tonight” viewers you can detect subtle patterns over recorded history, but that dates back to the 13th Century.

“If we go back really, in recorded human history, in the 13th Century, we were probably 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than we are now and it was a very prosperous time for mankind,” Lehr said. “If go back to the Revolutionary War 300 years ago, it was very, very cold. We’ve been warming out of that cold spell from the Revolutionary War period and now we’re back into a cooling cycle.”

Lehr suggested the earth is presently entering a cooling cycle – a result of nature, not man.

“The last 10 years have been quite cool,” Lehr continued. “And right now, I think we’re going into cooling rather than warming and that should be a much greater concern for humankind. But, all we can do is adapt. It is the sun that does it, not man.”

More...... (http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081218205953.aspx)

Rob Wadsworth

12-19-2008, 01:13 PM

That's a fair post, Jim.
But isn't it also a bit arrogant for Chad Myers to say that we will acidify the oceans too?!?
LOL!
I think the drinking water problem is pretty real, though. A steadily growing population needing larger quantities of potable water and also vast amounts of water are needed for industry to match growth. The amount of needed water overall is rising at an exponential rate. But that is another kettle of fish...

When it is all said and done, man will have eventually polluted the earth. So long as man's numbers will increase, so will the quantities of waste in all of its various forms.
As for global warming is concerned, it looks as though it is presently taking a vacation from Al Gore. Maybe Al should go on a ski trip - now that there is an early abundance of snow everywhere - if he can find a way to get to the snow safely.
And Al: get some snow shoes and take some pictures for all of us to see...

Gee; only a few days before Winter is officially here.
It looks like it is going to be a tough one - too...

K Johnson

12-19-2008, 02:49 PM

Is global warming and climate change the same thing? I am far more inclined to believe that human CO2 emissions are at least in part responsible for climate change... Not GW.

Jason and Brian - You are wonderful! Keep up the good work! If I was as eloquent as you I would be posting more.

Brian Emfinger

12-19-2008, 03:18 PM

Jim Saueressig

12-19-2008, 03:42 PM

That's a fair post, Jim.
But isn't it also a bit arrogant for Chad Myers to say that we will acidify the oceans too?!?
LOL!

I think that both sides are more than arrogant. :cool:

I think the drinking water problem is pretty real, though. A steadily growing population needing larger quantities of potable water and also vast amounts of water are needed for industry too. The amount of needed water overall is rising at an exponential rate.

We have serious pollution issues make no mistake about it, lets look at MTBE killing people by poisoning and destroying our water supply... Oh wait, we are too entangled in the global warming controversy to worry about something a million times more deadly than Global Warming.

As always we find something extreme to fill up the news with controversy about the future rather than a more immediate doom.

Jim Saueressig

12-19-2008, 03:49 PM

So in 2012 when the world ends or the magnetic poles flip will it be global warming that changed the ice vs tropics regions? LOL

Seriously, no one really knows what the world is going to pull out of its hat, the one thing we know is that there has been massive extremes from one side to the other over the centuries and our one minute worth of record keeping out of the years of earths life will not tell us what will happen for sure tomorrow. If you want to fight an anti pollution battle then blame it on the things we know for a fact like cancer, death and possible extinction if we poison the rest of the water etc, etc. Why fight an unsure battle for a cause when we have so many facts to argue rather than myths or possibilities.

Ryan McGinnis

12-19-2008, 04:26 PM

So in 2012 when the world ends or the magnetic poles flip will it be global warming that changed the ice vs tropics regions? LOL

http://jmsoul.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/divinelolwut.jpg

Seriously, no one really knows what the world is going to pull out of its hat, the one thing we know is that there has been massive extremes from one side to the other over the centuries and our one minute worth of record keeping out of the years of earths life will not tell us what will happen for sure tomorrow. If you want to fight an anti pollution battle then blame it on the things we know for a fact like cancer, death and possible extinction if we poison the rest of the water etc, etc. Why fight an unsure battle for a cause when we have so many facts to argue rather than myths or possibilities.

I think that it is that, for the most part, the data surrounding GW are pretty well known, it's just that a small handful of loud people refuse to accept them or the conclusions that they point to.

Jim Saueressig

12-19-2008, 06:05 PM

LOL WUT?[

You know, one of the many theories that the world ends with 2012 via the Mayan Calender, Planet X, Edward Cayce, Nostrill Dumass lol, etc so why worry about the future??

I think that it is that, for the most part, the data surrounding GW are pretty well known, it's just that a small handful of loud people refuse to accept them or the conclusions that they point to.

I disagree, there is nothing to conclude with so little evidence to go with. Again lets focus on what is fact rather than a speculative conclusion. There is too much bogus info called data in the GW argument.

There are just too many issues that could be dealt with all the energy and money being used to debate an uncertainty and what it might do to the future.

The only truth in this whole argument is that "If we spent 50% of the energy and money we are currently wasting on the GW controversy cleaning up the pollution problems of the NOW we would have already taken care of the pollution issues that will supposedly cause our future demise according to the GW arguement."

Drop all talk of future GW issues and focus on pollution now and all the ammo for GW is long gone before it gets here.;)

Ryan McGinnis

12-19-2008, 06:38 PM

I disagree,

I know, as do some others -- but data tends not to care whether people agree or disagree. If the data say the world is hotting up, then it probably is. If it's hotting up in a way that strongly suggests that humanity is a key factor, then we probably are.

To me, the argument seems a bit moot; mankind has neither the incliniation nor the ability to manage the world's resources in a sustainable fashion. We can sit here and argue about whether or not a train is coming, but in the end we're still handcuffed to the tracks. All the "there's nothing wrong, this is totally normal, the sky always sounds like a train whistle" nonsense is nothing more than a sad afternote in the last measures of a failed song.

Rob Wadsworth

12-19-2008, 07:05 PM

Chlorofluorocarbons have been removed from use for years, cars that are 0% emissions have been available for the last three years, wind energy is going crazy with setups and usage. This cleanup didn't start at the beginning of Gore's GW campaign; this has been ongoing for decades.

There has been vast improvements in emissions of hydrocarbons and CO2 for a long time now. There is no proof that CO2 and global warming is exact and the cause without a shadow of a doubt. The point is, the politicization of this has become a carnival and Gore is the one wearing the funny red nose and makeup. Let the 30k scientists go toe to toe with Gore's boys and see what happens. Even THAT will not be conclusive; as the exact cause is just not known. Anyone can speculate, and believe me - they have.

Damon Poole

12-20-2008, 12:59 AM

AMEN Rob, AMEN! Tell it like it is. There's too much ecopolitical conjecture, & not enough geoscientific context!

In science, you have to look at BOTH sides of a problem before you accept one solution or another. That's how critical thinking and science work, especially in trying to forecast something. In other words, you always have to ask yourself, "Are You Sure?". Even if the answer seems to be yes, it's vital to test your hypothesis again and again, make new observations, and list your uncertainties along with your interpretations of what the model data seems to be telling you. Most politicians and journalists are not scientists, so they'll never fully grasp the concept of verification, even though journalists should know better. That's how Gore and the IPCC get away with their scare tactics and make other politicians drink their KOOL-AID. Fortunately, there are a lot more than just a loud handfull who are questioning the AGW hypothesis and refusing to drink the hype. 31,000 scientists, and counting, can't be wrong!

K Johnson

12-20-2008, 05:07 AM

AMEN Rob, AMEN! Tell it like it is. There's too much ecopolitical conjecture, & not enough geoscientific context!

That's how Gore and the IPCC get away with their scare tactics and make other politicians drink their KOOL-AID.

Ok, I can understand not having respect for Gore. Personally, I like the guy, but politics is politics and even I can accept that he has his own agenda. But the IPCC? Why do you class them together with Gore? It seems to me that many people are ignoring, or not respecting the IPCC purely because they do not like what the IPCC has to say.

The IPCC WG1 wrote the paper 'Climate Change 2007 - The Physical Science Basis'. This paper looked at world wide research, from organisations and universities on every side of the debate. The paper was hosted by NOAA and UCAR, and was chaired by Professor Qin Dahe who:

'... is an internationally renowned climatologist and expert on global change. He is currently the Director of State Key Laboratory of Cryoshperic Sciences, Vice President of International Geographical Union, President of Chinese Meteorological Society, and Vice Chairman of Commission on Population, Resource and Environment of the 11th National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference. In June this year he received the 53rd World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Prize'

'Over the past three decades, Professor Qin has been actively and productively engaged in cryospheric and global change studies. He has participated and taken a leading role in numerous scientific exploration and research projects in the South Pole, North Pole, Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau and the western region of China. He has systematically studied the “decay” process of ice cap in the South Pole and used a quantitative approach to characterize the regional patterns of the evolution of snow to glacier ice. His research has investigated the relationship between the physical/chemical processes in the surface snow layer of South Pole ice cap and the environmental records of climate. The research findings in several areas, such as the relationship between the distribution of stable isotopes in precipitation and air temperature, sources and pathways of water vapor and multiple impurities, are still the most comprehensive and in-depth results of research on South Pole ice cap.

Professor Qin has carried out pioneering work on the monitoring and experiment of modern processes and biogeochemical cycling in snow and ice cover, demonstrating the applicability and validity of climatic signals derived from mountainous ice cores. His research on glacial evolution, modern environmental changes and ice cores in the Mt. Qomolangma (Everest) area has discovered the characteristics of modern climate change in the highest elevations of the earth.'

The IPCC WG1 paper was also chaired by Susan Soloman, who:
'is Senior Scientist at NOAA’s Earth SystemResearch Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado. Has been a scientist at NOAA for more than 26 years. Her work over that time has focused on understanding the cause of ozone depletion. In 2000, she received this nation’s highest scientific award, the National Medal of Science, in recognition of that work. She is the author or co-author of more than 150 scientific publications... An atmospheric chemist, ... In 1986 and '87, she led expeditions to Antarctica, working through the darkness of the polar winter and bringing back confirmation that there was indeed a growing ozone hole and that chemicals known as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were causing it. Those conclusions helped lead to a global ban on CFCs.'

As well as these highly respected chairs, there was involvement in the report from Britain and America's most respected Universities.

You don't have to like what the IPCC report says, but I cannot understand how you can not respect the findings of people who are ultimately far more qualified than you are to make statements on climate change.

And while we're on the subject - 'Global warming' is so passe and '90's! As many of the comments here show - the issue is now climate change!

Brian Emfinger

12-20-2008, 06:37 AM

31,000 scientists, and counting, can't be wrong!

and yet if you look throughout history that's exactly what has happened time and time again!

I also think it is important to realize that many of those 31,000 scientists don't necessarily think man enhanced/made gw is not real but that it simply can't be proven at this point. I would also venture to guess that if you polled every scientist on the planet about it then you would find most (a clear majority) had some level of belief in the main aspects of man made/enhanced gw.

edit: As for gw and IPCC report... here are a just a few of the organizations that have endorsed their report and many of the aspects of gw:

World Meteorological Organization
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Geological Sciences
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
Geological Society of America
American Astronomical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
American Chemical Society
World Federation of Public Health Associations
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Medical Association

Damon Poole

12-20-2008, 03:03 PM

K. Johnson wrote -
"Ok, I can understand not having respect for Gore. Personally, I like the guy, but politics is politics and even I can accept that he has his own agenda. But the IPCC? Why do you class them together with Gore? It seems to me that many people are ignoring, or not respecting the IPCC purely because they do not like what the IPCC has to say."

Maybe it's because IPCC is a political organization, and birds of a feather flock together. Consider the following....

The following is from the IPCC Website - http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm - see the mandate section. It states...."The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage."

Note the second sentence...."The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters." This is red flag number one. There is no independent scientific verification, or challenge to any of the findings of the committee before the reports are issued. This means that any scientists who challenge or disagree with the "peer reviewed" data in the reports are often discounted or overridden by the bureaucrats who issue the final reports. The point here is, they only present one side of the story and refuse to allow scientific challenges of their one sided reports. To me, that goes against the IPCC's stated goal of providing..."on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change."

When atmospheric scientists who disagree with the IPCC hypothesis are termed "flat Earthers" or lumped together with people who think the moon landings occurred on the Arizona desert, that, to me, shoots the IPCC's alleged "credibility" in the foot.

Damon Poole

12-20-2008, 03:16 PM

A few points here, Brian, first, your first statement can also be applied to the IPCC scientists. The IPCC doesn't conduct scientific research or verification, yet they can authoritatively say, "there is no scientific debate"? Sorry, I don't think so. That's pure ecopolitical propaganda being cunningly disguised as geoscience. I'm not buying it, and at least 31,000 others don't either.

Second point. Belief is the key word. Belief in a possible model based hypothesis is not proven scientific theory. Even NASA and NOAA use the words "Scientists believe", instead of saying that AGCC is a proven scientific theory.

Third point, as far as society endorsements, these are policy statements. Any society can do that. Of course the WMO endorsed it, IPCC was spun off from them.

and yet if you look throughout history that's exactly what has happened time and time again!

I also think it is important to realize that many of those 31,000 scientists don't necessarily think man enhanced/made gw is not real but that it simply can't be proven at this point. I would also venture to guess that if you polled every scientist on the planet about it then you would find most (a clear majority) had some level of belief in the main aspects of man made/enhanced gw.

edit: As for gw and IPCC report... here are a just a few of the organizations that have endorsed their report and many of the aspects of gw:

World Meteorological Organization
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Geological Sciences
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
Geological Society of America
American Astronomical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
American Chemical Society
World Federation of Public Health Associations
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Medical Association

Ryan McGinnis

12-20-2008, 08:35 PM

Note the second sentence...."The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters." This is red flag number one.

No, it's not really.

If I set up a service that reported on the precise chaseday predictions of Vasquez, Doswell, Marshall, Timmer, Edwards, Hollingshead, Umscheid, Samaras, and a slew of other successful chasers, and on the morning of May 20th of next year they ALL predicted that a large tornado outbreak was likely to occur in southcentral Kansas, I suspect that nobody would care that I wasn't personally adding my own chaseday prediction into the mix. "Ryan, you didn't do your own forecast, and that's HUGE RED FLAG that we can't trust your service! Even though I am not an experienced forecaster, I'm confident in ignoring all those people because you didn't do your own forecast, so how can you possibly know? I'm sticking with my Farmer's Almanac!"

Actually, my analogy is a bit off. To be perfectly analogous, the service would have to be run by an extremely experienced forecaster who just happened to not be doing any forecasting that day.

Damon Poole

12-21-2008, 10:13 AM

Yes Ryan, it does matter, and yes it is a red flag. If I were chasing in that scenario, and my vehicle broke down in the middle of the chase, I certainly wouldn't trust the repair work to someone who hadn't worked with vehicles before. I would demand and expect an expert mechanic. Similarly, if I am to believe a report, I want it to be from an objective, experienced, and qualified climatologist who forecasts on a daily basis, not some political hack who just "perused the literature" but knows nothing about what he or she reads or speaks. Also, I want someone who is responsible and accountable enough to report NOT just the hypothesis that only supports THEIR agenda, but ALSO the limitations of that hypothesis, and ALL the alternatives to it, NOT just the headline grabbers. That's what REAL scientists do. Real scientists tell the whole story.

Brian Emfinger

12-21-2008, 10:30 AM

If I am to believe a forecast, I want it to be from someone who does it on a daily basis, not some political hack.

Man made and/or man enhanced gw has a pretty wide spread scientific community consensus. The numbers of scientists who believe are much more than the 30,000 and include a large number of people directly involved in climate research.

The bury my head in the sand, nothing is wrong, nothing to see here group is lead and financed by political hacks with much more political and financial weight than the other side. Of course that is all due to the incredible number of businesses that stand to lose many billons of dollars if gw is proven to be right and changes are demanded by the public.

K Johnson

12-21-2008, 10:45 AM

Similarly, if I am to believe a report, I want it to be from someone experienced and qualified forecaster who does it on a daily basis, not some political hack who just "perused the literature" but knows nothing about which he or she reads or speaks..

Did you miss the whole 'They're the best in the world, Nobel Prize winning, WMO award winning meteorologists, climatologists, and scientists' statements. They may not have written the evidence - but they did look at both sides of the argument, they are more than qualified. and they came to a conclusion. The fact you dislike that conclusion does not mean they were not qualified to reach it!

Damon Poole

12-21-2008, 11:17 AM

There you go again with the same tired "there is no debate, there is only consensus" argument. My head is not buried in the sand. What about the chicken little, sky is falling, climate profiteers like GE and NBC/Universal who continually ram this AGCC stuff down the public's throat? NBC "Green is Universal Week"? Give me a break! I said this before and I'll say it again, natural climate change is real, completely AGCC is science fiction. Believe what you will, that's your right, just as it's my right to disagree with you.

Man made and/or man enhanced gw has a pretty wide spread scientific community consensus. The numbers of scientists who believe are much more than the 30,000 and include a large number of people directly involved in climate research.

The bury my head in the sand, nothing is wrong, nothing to see here group is lead and financed by political hacks with much more political and financial weight than the other side. Of course that is all due to the incredible number of businesses that stand to lose many billons of dollars if gw is proven to be right and changes are demanded by the public.

Damon Poole

12-21-2008, 11:24 AM

The scientists who disagree are also among the best in the world, and come from the same ranks. That doesn't mean they aren't qualified to make their opinions known. The fact that you, or the IPCC, dislikes an opinion different than yours or their own, doesn't make the disagreeing opinions invalid, either. The IPCC may have looked at both sides, but they reported only one side, the alarmist side.

Did you miss the whole 'They're the best in the world, Nobel Prize winning, WMO award winning meteorologists, climatologists, and scientists' statements. They may not have written the evidence - but they did look at both sides of the argument, they are more than qualified. and they came to a conclusion. The fact you dislike that conclusion does not mean they were not qualified to reach it!

Dave Gallaher

12-21-2008, 01:00 PM

I said this before and I'll say it again, natural climate change is real, completely AGCC is science fiction.

Okay, Damon: prove it. Don't quote anybody or any study--you said it, now prove it.

__________________________________________

While I don't think it's fair to label either side of this discussion 'flat earthers,' the discussion itself seems to bear considerable similarity to the flat/round earth debate, with both sides assembling testimonials from notable figures. I think that's the phase we are in now. Who knows how long it will take for either theory to establish scientific (and not social) dominance? For myself, I'd prefer some more open-mindedness from each side, and perhaps cooperation; this isn't too much to hope for if the pulpits and soapboxes are replaced with independent fieldwork and labs.

As for Al Gore, it cannot be denied that he has brought the issue to a worldwide audience, which is his main contribution. Agree or disagree with him, he has raised the level of discussion several degrees. Had this happened in an era that lacked today's partisan 'news' propaganda outlets, there may have been little or no political involvement, rather a simple postulation of an idea worth examining at considerable length and expense by scientists and interested lay persons on both sides of the issue.

K Johnson

12-21-2008, 01:11 PM

The scientists who disagree are also among the best in the world, and come from the same ranks. That doesn't mean they aren't qualified to make their opinions known. The fact that you, or the IPCC, dislikes an opinion different than yours or their own, doesn't make the disagreeing opinions invalid, either. The IPCC may have looked at both sides, but they reported only one side, the alarmist side.

Thats just it. I have never once said that your opions are wrong, and I have never questioned the validity of your arguments. All I have done is ask that you give the scientists on 'my' side of the debate the same respect - or at least some respect, and not dismiss them as unknowledgable.

Jim Saueressig

12-21-2008, 01:21 PM

Okay, Damon: prove it. Don't quote anybody or any study--you said it, now prove it.

It has been proven as best it can over and over by scientists studying the past. It's just as valid for the people who believe GW is bogus to use other peoples studies as it is for those who say the GW sky is falling.

The GW alarmists use little bits of info from here and there to back their claims. I can do the same for natural global environmental changes.

The poles used to be ice free, the USA was many times mostly covered in ice, the Denver area used to be a tropical rain forest at one point and covered in glaciers at another point and at yet another it was desert. Nebraska was covered in glaciers a few times and yet a desert at others..... The same goes for pretty much all parts of the world. Natural climate change is a fact no amount of GW alarm sounding can change.

Sometime this is a meteor strike induced event, others may be volcanic. Sometimes the earth just shakes things up, end of story.

David Wolfson

12-21-2008, 01:38 PM

I don't think there's anything like the rapidity of change shown in the historical record save natural cataclysms like meteorite strikes and caldera eruptions and such. Stuff appears to be happening very quickly quite consistent with multiple chains of scientific analysis suggesting that AGCC is primarily responsible.

Hopefully it isn't, but those "30,000 scientists" haven't so far come up with convincing alternatives backed by good science IMHO.

Dave Gallaher

12-21-2008, 01:49 PM

It has been proven as best it can over and over by scientists studying the past. It's just as valid for the people who believe GW is bogus to use other peoples studies as it is for those who say the GW sky is falling.

I think it's one thing to state that a one supports a theory, and another to claim that an opposing view is "science fiction." Such a bold claim should merit a personal demonstration of the claimant's irrefutible evidence.

Scientists studying the past have come up with both conclusions.

While each side has demonstrated its position, neither has, in my unscientific opinion, proved anything. Let's have more research, and less polarization.

Damon Poole

12-21-2008, 02:57 PM

I agree with that you there needs to be more research and less polarization. As I was trying to say in an earlier post, I also want to hear from someone who is responsible and accountable enough to report NOT just the hypothesis that only supports THEIR agenda, but ALSO the limitations of that hypothesis, and ALL the alternatives to it, NOT just the headline grabbers. This is where alarmists and the IPCC have dropped the ball. When scientists who disagree have tried to speak out, they are ignored, misrepresented, or ostercised by alarmists. The mass media and the politicians have been willing accomplices in this.

My disbelief is in the Global Warming hype. My skepticism is backed by many hours in college studying Astronomy, Biology, Computer Science, Earth Science, Oceanography, Physical and Historical Geology, Physical Geography, Weather and Climate, and Natural Hazards. These studies taught me that there are many types of natural forcings involved in Climate Change, other than just Human produced Greenhouse gasses. This is why I don't believe that Human Greenhouse gasses are totally responsible for recent global climate change. Computer models are not concrete proof. Anyone who forecasts knows that computer models are helpful, but they are not the final authority, especially for a century or more in advance. Believe what you will, that's your right, just as it's my right to agree or disagree with you.

I think it's one thing to state that a one supports a theory, and another to claim that an opposing view is "science fiction." Such a bold claim should merit a personal demonstration of the claimant's irrefutible evidence.

Scientists studying the past have come up with both conclusions.

While each side has demonstrated its position, neither has, in my unscientific opinion, proved anything. Let's have more research, and less polarization.