Opinion

Opinion

Fact-based climate debate

December 16, 2009

Advertisement

It is crucial that scientists are factually accurate when they do speak out, that they ignore media hype and maintain a clinical detachment from social or other agendas. There are facts and data that are ignored in the maelstrom of social and economic agendas swirling about Copenhagen.

Greenhouse gases and their effects are well-known. Here are some of things we know:

• The most effective greenhouse gas is water vapor, comprising approximately 95 percent of the total greenhouse effect.

• Carbon dioxide concentration has been continually rising for nearly 100 years. It continues to rise, but carbon dioxide concentrations at present are near the lowest in geologic history.

• Temperature change correlation with carbon dioxide levels is not statistically significant.

• There are no data that definitively relate carbon dioxide levels to temperature changes.

• The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide logarithmically declines with increasing concentration. At present levels, any additional carbon dioxide can have very little effect.

We also know a lot about Earth temperature changes:

• Global temperature changes naturally all of the time, in both directions and at many scales of intensity.

• The warmest year in the U.S. in the last century was 1934, not 1998. The U.S. has the best and most extensive temperature records in the world.

• Global temperature peaked in 1998 on the current 60-80 year cycle, and has been episodically declining ever since. This cooling absolutely falsifies claims that human carbon dioxide emissions are a controlling factor in Earth temperature.

• Voluminous historic records demonstrate the Medieval Climate Optimum (MCO) was real and that the “hockey stick” graphic that attempted to deny that fact was at best bad science. The MCO was considerably warmer than the end of the 20th century.

• During the last 100 years, temperature has both risen and fallen, including the present cooling. All the changes in temperature of the last 100 years are in normal historic ranges, both in absolute value and, most importantly, rate of change.

Contrary to many public statements:

• Effects of temperature change are absolutely independent of the cause of the temperature change.

• Global hurricane, cyclonic and major storm activity is near 30-year lows. Any increase in cost of damages by storms is a product of increasing population density in vulnerable areas such as along the shores and property value inflation, not due to any increase in frequency or severity of storms.

• Polar bears have survived and thrived over periods of extreme cold and extreme warmth over hundreds of thousands of years — extremes far in excess of modern temperature changes.

• The 2009 minimum Arctic ice extent was significantly larger than the previous two years. The 2009 Antarctic maximum ice extent was significantly above the 30-year average. There are only 30 years of records.

• Rate and magnitude of sea level changes observed during the last 100 years are within normal historical ranges. Current sea level rise is tiny and, at most, justifies a prediction of perhaps ten centimeters rise in this century.

The present climate debate is a classic conflict between data and computer programs. The computer programs are the source of concern over climate change and global warming, not the data. Data are measurements. Computer programs are artificial constructs.

Public announcements use a great deal of hyperbole and inflammatory language. For instance, the word “ever” is misused by media and in public pronouncements alike. It does not mean “in the last 20 years,“ or “the last 70 years.” “Ever” means the last 4.5 billion years.

For example, some argue that the Arctic is melting, with the warmest-ever temperatures. One should ask, “How long is ever?” The answer is since 1979. And then ask, “Is it still warming?” The answer is unequivocally “No.” Earth temperatures are cooling. Similarly, the word “unprecedented” cannot be legitimately used to describe any climate change in the last 8,000 years.

There is not an unlimited supply of liquid fuels. At some point, sooner or later, global oil production will decline, and transportation costs will become insurmountable if we do not develop alternative energy sources. However, those alternative energy sources do not now exist.

A legislated reduction in energy use or significant increase in cost will severely harm the global economy and force a reduction in the standard of living in the United States. It is time we spent the research dollars to invent an order-of-magnitude better solar converter and an order-of-magnitude better battery. Once we learn how to store electrical energy, we can electrify transportation. But these are separate issues. Energy conversion is not related to climate change science.

I have been a reviewer of the last two IPCC reports, one of the several thousand scientists who purportedly are supporters of the IPCC view that humans control global temperature. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of us try to bring better and more current science to the IPCC, but we usually fail. Recently we found out why. The whistleblower release of e-mails and files from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University has demonstrated scientific malfeasance and a sickening violation of scientific ethics.

If the game of Russian roulette with the environment that Adrian Melott contends is going on, is it how will we feed all the people when the cold of the inevitable Little Ice Age returns? It will return. We just don’t know when.

Comments

Richard Heckler 5 years, 3 months ago

U.S. Business Interests Suspected in 'Fabricated' Climate Scandal By Staff, Agence France Presse

Environment: The emails that have right-wingers frothing aren't scandalous. The issue is who hacked the scientists' computers, and what they had to gain from undermining their research.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/144540/u.s.business_interests_suspected_in%27fabricated%27_climate_scandal___

Richard Heckler 5 years, 3 months ago

US business interests suspected in ‘fabricated’ climate scandal

By Agence France-Presse Sunday, December 13th, 2009 -- 12:02 pm

http://rawstory.com/2009/12/business-interests-suspected-fabricated-climate-scandal/

Richard Heckler 5 years, 3 months ago

The best way for us to reduce pollution is to boycott energy use at every opportunity which is something that does not require new technology yet saves all of us money,money,money and more money.

Union of Concerned Scientists/Global Warming Contrarians

BASIC

* Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manfuactured Controversy
* New Book "SuperFreakonomics" Mischaracterizes Climate Science
* Global Warming Skeptic Organizations
* Crichton Thriller State of Fear

• UCS Examines 'The Skeptical Environmentalist' http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/

OUR ANALYSIS

* ExxonMobil Report: Smoke Mirrors & Hot Air

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/

Global Warming

Global warming is one of the most serious challenges facing us today. To protect the health and economic well-being of current and future generations, we must reduce our emissions of heat-trapping gases by using the technology, know-how, and practical solutions already at our disposal.

*The Union of Concerned Scientists at the Copenhagen Climate Negotiations As talks intended to prevent the worst consequences of climate change get underway in Copenhagen , UCS's team of international policy experts and scientists are on-site, working hard to deliver the urgently needed agreement. Keep tabs on their activities and hear other news and analysis from the conference via our video updates. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

*Key Provisions in the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. Though the bill in many ways mirrors the strong comprehensive framework of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) that passed in the House in June, there are several key areas in which the legislation differs. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

*Costs of Climate Inaction Failing to act on climate change is prohibitively expensive—from flooding and storm damage in coastal communities to health care costs and agricultural losses in our heartland. Unchecked climate change could saddle taxpayers with hundreds of billions of dollars in damages. Learn about costs in your region, and the Senate bill aimed at limiting our climate impact. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

*New Study Shows Sensible Path to Clean Energy Economy Climate 2030: A National Blueprint for a Clean Energy Economy found that implementing a smart set of climate, energy, and transportation policies can save consumers and businesses money while deeply reducing our nation's heat-trapping emissions. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

  • All of the above are green dollar savers that fit into wallets

melott 5 years, 3 months ago

As I said, it's easy to mislead rapidly. I will address the first three points: 1. This is true, and well-known. However, water moves rapidly in and out of the atmosphere (evaporation, rain, snow) and isn't a fixed quantity. CO2 and methane change slowly. Once in the ground or atmosphere they tend to stay there, unless forced (eg by burning lots of coal). A known effect of global warming is that an increase in CO2 increases the average temperature a little, which causes a bit more water to evaporate, and increase global warming, which.... Conclusion: true, but misleading. 2. True, & well-known. The last million years or so have been very cool. Humans evolved during one of the cooler long periods in geologic history. Most of the time the Earth was ice-free, but it's been a long time since things were like that. CO2 is now lower than the average time, when you had a dinosaur infested swamp or something like that. On the other hand it is higher than it has been for more than a million years. Certainly since Homo Sapiens evolved. Conclusion: true, but misleading. 3. Probably true. He didn't say correlation over what time period, and that must be specified for the statement to be meaningful. You can always find some period where it does not correlate, even if it does for most. Give him the benefit of the doubt. Conclusion: True, but misleading.

He claims to have been involved in climate change and study for 50 years. Let me show the results of some checking:

A. http://www.desmogblog.com/lee-c-gerhard Lee C. Gerhard Research and Background

Gerhard is a retired geologist from the University of Kansas. He has government and industry experience in petroleum exploration, research and exploration program management, oil and gas regulation and reservoir geology,,,Gerhard has published 13 research articles in peer-reviewed journals, mainly on the subject of resource geology in the oil and gas sector.

Gerhard and the NRSP Gerhard is listed as an "Allied Expert" for a Canadian group called the "Natural Resource Stewardship Project," (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose its funding sources...

B. http://www.colorado.edu/cwa/bios.html?id=300&year=2003

Principal geologist of the Kansas Geological Survey, Lee C. Gerhard received his B.S. in geology at Syracuse University and his M.S. and Ph.D. at the University of Kansas. He has combined academic, government and industry leadership and technical appointments, including petroleum exploration, management of exploration programs, oil and gas regulation, reservoir geology and management of research. His research interests are in carbonate sedimentology, petroleum geology and environmental public policy. He has been the state geologist of North Dakota, and led a marine laboratory. Prior to returning to Kansas, he was the Getty professor of geological engineering at the Colorado School of Mines and operated an independent petroleum exploration company.

Need I say more?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

Regarding point #2-- All of the billions of tons of fossil fuels we are now burning up and shooting into the atmosphere were sequestered during a time of higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and much higher global temperatures, over a period of millions of years.

In other words, we are discharging a battery that took millions of years to charge, and we're doing it over a period of a century or two. And we're supposed to believe that that will have zero effect on the climate-- a climate that even the so-called skeptics acknowledge varies greatly over time?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

"The warmest year in the U.S. in the last century was 1934, not 1998. The U.S. has the best and most extensive temperature records in the world."

This is just stupid. The issue is GLOBAL climate change, not what happens in North America during one summer.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

"Global temperature peaked in 1998 on the current 60-80 year cycle, and has been episodically declining ever since. "

Misleading statements such as this clearly demonstrate that you are not really interested in "fact-based debate," Lee.

You fail to note that temperatures since 1998 are still significantly higher than temperatures before 1998. The first decade of this century is the warmest on record.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

"Yes, you didn't really say much anything at all."

He said enough. If you want more said, why don't you say it yourself?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

So you're invested in stupidity. Nothing new there, LO.

georgiahawk 5 years, 3 months ago

One fact that we can all bet on, Tom is an idiot! Why is it that he fights so hard for big business destroying America and our way of life? Doesn't he love America?

melott 5 years, 3 months ago

What we do about the science is political by nature, because it involves making decisions about what to do. The deniers have decided to approach it by trying to confuse the science.

With regard to my conclusions, if you can't figure out what I meant, then I understand why you "are where you are".

georgeofwesternkansas 5 years, 3 months ago

How do you in fact make a carbon atom?

I am sure that all of you Gore deciples can provide that simple bit of information.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

"All my research"

Then you really shouldn't limit your "research" to the likes of O'Reilly, Limbaugh and Beck. Talk about alarmist idiots.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

"How do you in fact make a carbon atom?"

If you ask a stupid question, you'll likely get a stupid answer.

Satirical 5 years, 3 months ago

I love it when liberals try to shift the focus off the scientist who have a political agenda and who hide data which doesn’t support man-made global warming, to those who hacked the computers. Yes, the hackers are the real villains…I wonder if you would be saying the same thing if hackers found email that acted as an indictment against a conservative individual or cause. I won’t hold my breath.

The real funny part is that that liberals claim those who don't agree the science concludes global warming is man-made are biased and have a pecuniary interest in "distorting facts." However, they fail to realize that the Al Gore's of the world, and many others who support the theory of man-made global warming, are heavily invested in "green technology" and want more and more subsidies to line their own pockets. But ignoring informaiton which doesn't support their preconceived notions isn't a new concept to many liberals.

georgeofwesternkansas 5 years, 3 months ago

Ok bozo I am stupid. How do you make a carbon atom?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

Too bad none of the hacked emails do anything to disprove the data or the science, satirical.

But go ahead and keep harping on the hacked emails as if it actually means anything.

Olympics 5 years, 3 months ago

Jacob you clearly had your head in the sand for the last several decades....find a republican platform that acknowledges evolution and admits the latest creationist idea is crap. Or Openly discusses the age of the earth...Or read "The Republican War on Science" for more recent history.

Conservatives and the republican party have repeatedly undermined their credibility when it comes to science and biology in particular.

Flap Doodle 5 years, 3 months ago

How can they go wrong with Chavez & Mugabe addressing the gathering in Nopehagen?

Satirical 5 years, 3 months ago

Melott… “Need I say more?”

Actually, yes. I would very much like to know why you believe Mr Gerhard’s resume makes him biased. And if he is attempting to mislead, is his misleading worse than the scientists who hid data and exaggerated to support rapid social acceptance of the theory of man-made global warming?

Also, I noticed you didn’t attempt to counter his other facts. Wouldn’t an objective individual question the theory of man-made global warming when the models predicted the earth’s temperature would continue to rise after 1998, but instead temperatures have fallen? If that computer simulation is wrong, do you think it is possible the other computer simulations which predict widespread calamities are incorrect?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

"I would very much like to know why you believe Mr Gerhard’s resume makes him biased."

Isn't it obvious? For all the crap that's spewed about climate scientists doing climate research strictly for the money, if you're going to go into science for the money, Gerhard's field is a much better route to take.

Satirical 5 years, 3 months ago

Bozo… “This is just stupid. The issue is GLOBAL climate change, not what happens in North America during one summer.”

Perhaps you need to teach geography. I had no idea North America was not located anywhere on the globe. Or perhaps you are suggesting that North America is on the globe, but climate change affected everywhere but North America (one of the largest producers of greenhouse gases). Either way, those are some startling revelations.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

Jeez, satirical, that was even stupider. Perhaps you need an education on the meanings of "global," "climate" and "weather." Although clearly, the only dictionary you have is one that supports your political biases.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

"Do any of you honestly believe that governments will be able to curb or reverse climate change?"

Not if we elect Republicans.

zbarf 5 years, 3 months ago

People...remember that climate change is like a religion to many people...and to call that into question is the equivalent of blasphemy to a radical Muslim.

"No mater the facts, my life if for you!"

Satirical 5 years, 3 months ago

Bozo… “if you're going to go into science for the money, Gerhard's field is a much better route to take…”

So your logic is…any scientist that chooses a field of work wherein s/he gets paid well, must have became a scientist only for the money…and therefore isn’t really a scientist….and their observations are necessarily false? So in your opinion someone can only be label a scientist if s/he is poor or is a scientist for solely altruistic reason? And only scientist can observe facts?

Wow! Another startling revelation by Bozo.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

"People…remember that climate change is like a religion to many people"

And remember, the people who say this know very few facts, and get all their information from people who know very few facts.

Satirical 5 years, 3 months ago

Bozo… “Jeez, satirical, that was even stupider.”

I know you are but what am I? Next time when you want to digress to childish name calling, why don’t you at least back it up with some evidence or logic. Or is that asking too much?

But seriously, these were your words. I am just trying to understand what you are trying to say. Because based on your statement, you must think North America isn’t locate on the planet Earth or is somehow immune to changes that affect the rest of the Earth.

melott 5 years, 3 months ago

OK, I will fall for it just to keep you happy. His resume clearly shows that he has economic interests and a career based on oil and gas exploration. Secondarily, it shows that he has not worked much if any on climate change, except as a lobbyist. On your second point in your first paragraph, I don't believe that this has happened except in a very small number of cases.

I didn't attempt to deal with his entire list because you can see how much space it took to deal with 3 points. And still some people here apparently did not understand what I meant. Then you mention one point (1998). You did not say whether you were using global or North American temperatures. Actually, the 2000 decade was the warmest globally since records started. 9 of the 10 warmest years are in this decade. 2009 is the 5th warmest year. All globally averaged.

It is always possible that science can be incorrect. I don't think it is likely that modern climate simulations are very far off. I believe they do not include a probable 80 year sunspot cycle, which might cause a leveling off for the next decade, after which the warming would resume.

Satirical 5 years, 3 months ago

LesBlevins… “Mr. Gerhard speaks very well for the extractive industries that depend on mining finite fossil fuels and selling them to us to further enrichen their stockholders at the expense of today's cash strapped consumers and at the expense of future generations who will suffer the consequences.”

Yes, Mr. Gerhard is obviously biased in favor of the petroleum industry and other world destroying enterprises. I think Mr. Gerhard’s bias is most evident when he advocates for development of alternative energy sources, which would hurt the “extractive industries,” when he says, “(a)t some point, sooner or later, global oil production will decline, and transportation costs will become insurmountable if we do not develop alternative energy sources.”

Your statement has shown that you clearly are not prejudicial against these industries, so I will believe you, instead of the biased Mr. Gerhard…

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

No, satirical, what I would say is Gerhard really wasn't doing pure science. His research had one purpose, and one purpose only, which was to extract and process fossil fuels so that they could be sold by an industry well known for its greed and cavalier and callous attitude towards the environment and any people who might get in the way of doing what they want to do, whether it's fishermen in Alaska, Bedouin in the Middle East or anyone living in a coastal area anywhere on the planet. That you don't understand that is not surprising, given your general predilection for willful ignorance.

preebo 5 years, 3 months ago

I must have missed this "solid majority" that believes climate change is not a real issue. What I did read a few days ago, was that a majority Americans DO believe climate change is a REAL and to address it would go far to address the current joblessness situation.

remember_username 5 years, 3 months ago

I'd have to hand it to Melott for pointing out the most significant problem with the climate change debate. Too many of the "experts" have an agenda when interpreting and presenting the facts to the public. Clearly Mr. Gerhard has an interest in protecting the interests of the energy industry. Does this make him any less an expert? No! Does it make him a liar? No! But that information should give a reasonable person pause when considering the facts he presents. Unfortunately, there are too few reasonable persons out there anymore. Lazy thinking and immediate gratification is the way of America today.

jazzman 5 years, 3 months ago

Thank you, Mr. Gerhard. You are among tens of thousands of scientists who are a voice of reason and sanity.

Satirical 5 years, 3 months ago

Melott… “OK, I will fall for it just to keep you happy.”

Fall for what? You offered to say more (unless you were being misleading.). I simply accepted your offer.

“His resume clearly shows that he has economic interests and a career based on oil and gas exploration. “ - Melott

Assuming someone who is biased is necessarily wrong, is a logical fallacy. I have heard many liberals claim that even though the scientist whose letters were stolen were biased against research supporting man-made global, didn’t mean they were wrong about the theory man-made global warming.

“Secondarily, it shows that he has not worked much if any on climate change, except as a lobbyist.” - Melott

I do not know if you are trying to be misleading or simply did a poor google search. But when I googled his name, I cam across reports dating back over a decade on his research regarding climate change (and that was just a cursory glance at the first two pages).

Also, do you have evidence that his job as a lobbyist is to oppose the theory of man-made global warming?

“On your second point in your first paragraph, I don't believe that this has happened except in a very small number of cases.” - Melott

So you are claiming that the stolen emails aren’t legitimate? Even if it has happened in only a very small number of cases, you still didn’t answer my question.

“I didn't attempt to deal with his entire list because you can see how much space it took to deal with 3 points. And still some people here apparently did not understand what I meant.” - Melott

I will give you the benefit of the doubt re: why you didn’t want to do the entire list. I assume your overall intentions was to show this author was biased, and therefore should be distrusted. But again, that doesn’t disprove his facts.

“You did not say whether you were using global or North American temperatures.” - Melott

Does it matter when the scientific model predicting an increase was wrong?

“It is always possible that science can be incorrect. I don't think it is likely that modern climate simulations are very far off. I believe they do not include a probable 80 year sunspot cycle, which might cause a leveling off for the next decade, after which the warming would resume.” - Melott

So even though scientific models were wrong about increasing of temperatures since 1998, you still think it is likely to occur in the future. Good to know your faith hasn't been affected by evidence which doesn't support your theory.

Also, I find it interesting that when those in the scientific community who support the man-made global warming theory are confronted by data which contradict their conclusion (reference 1998), they blame earth climate cycles and solar cycles to explain it away. But when earth and solar cycles are used by those who don’t support the theory of man-made global warming, they are attacked as biased.

Satirical 5 years, 3 months ago

Bozo… “No, satirical, what I would say is Gerhard really wasn't doing pure science.”

So you are backing away from your previous statements and making a new argument. You could have simply admitted you were wrong, and then I would be happy to move on to your next argument.

jayhawklawrence 5 years, 3 months ago

I really enjoyed reading this article because it was not full of political rhetoric. It was a well articulated expression of Mr. Gerhard's logic based on his lifetime of research in the field.

But just because he is intelligent and vastly experienced does not mean he is correct in all of his conclusions and facts. It does not mean he is wrong either. It is simply a good beginning of a discussion that we are missing when biased politicians waste our time with their endless and meaningless debates and rants designed to inflame naivete (and hopelessly uninformed) voters.

I would like to see more of these type of articles including the alternative viewpoints from reasonable and qualified sources. That is what we are missing in the media today.

"Reasonable discussions and honest debates" are what I am longing for. Not the trash we see in the media today.

Vic 5 years, 3 months ago

Here's the biggest fact of all:

Scientists are using figures, they say, that mention temperatures, readings on CO2 levels, and the like that date back, according to the original poster, over 100 years. I don't know about you, but I doubt the accuracy of a temperature and CO2 level reading from around the turn of the century and older. They are using figures also from even older than that, 19th century and earlier, to justify their claims. Ladies and Gentlemen, the real fact is, these "scientists" do not actually have these figures. This "factual data" has been manufactured in some way. It has been either randomly made up or hypothesized through math. And guess what, we can't prove them wrong unless we have a time machine. The fact is, we don't know. These "scientists" are only guessing which is why they are not in agreement.

I am all for finding newer, better and more efficient sources of energy. I am not for the fat cats who are holding back the technology to do so, and I am not for the scare tactic being used to get people to try to change.

LoveThsLife 5 years, 3 months ago

I just like a good debate, rather than have it one sided. I am glad those e-mails got hacked. I think it has allowed people to think about the information they are receiving...regardless of who is right.

Are we doing damage to the environment? Yes.

Is climate change real and man made? Not sure...however I still think it is a good idea to find more fuel efficient ways of doing things.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

"I find it interesting that when those in the scientific community who support the man-made global warming theory are confronted by data which contradict their conclusion (reference 1998)"

Ah, but when such "data" is scrutinized, it turns out that the conclusion hasn't been contradicted at all. But you'll keep pretending that it has.

jhwk2008 5 years, 3 months ago

Wow, Mr. Gerhard picks the data he uses very, very carefully.

  1. "Global temperature peaked in 1998 on the current 60-80 year cycle, and has been episodically declining ever since. This cooling absolutely falsifies claims that human carbon dioxide emissions are a controlling factor in Earth temperature."

1998 is the warmest on record, but only if one uses Hadley Centre data. Deniers use Hadley Centre data because it excludes temperature data from the Arctic Ocean, the place on Earth that has been warming fastest. But if one uses NASA data, 2005 is the warmest on record. Why doesn't Mr. Gerhard mention that?

Furthermore, statisticians who reviewed satellite temperature data "found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set."

"Saying there's a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers."

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/091026/science/science_us_sci_global_cooling

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

"So you are backing away from your previous statements and making a new argument. You could have simply admitted you were wrong, and then I would be happy to move on to your next argument. "

Not at all. I'd say nice try, but it wasn't all that nice.

jhwk2008 5 years, 3 months ago

"The 2009 minimum Arctic ice extent was significantly larger than the previous two years. The 2009 Antarctic maximum ice extent was significantly above the 30-year average. There are only 30 years of records."

Why does Mr. Gerhard start with 2007? Because the Arctic ice cap dwindled to a record-low minimum extent of 4.3 million square kilometers (1.7 million square miles) in September 2007? Why doesn't he start with 2005 or 2006?

"The melting in 2008 and 2009 was not as extensive, but still ranked as the second- and third-greatest decreases on record."

See how he chooses the warmest year on record, but not according to NASA, and claims the earth is cooling? Or chooses the year with the record-low Arctic ice and claims the ice is growing?

That's like me looking at 10 game stretch during the MLB season and concluding that the Royals (or Blue Jays), who went 8-2 during that stretch, were a better team than the Yankees, who went 6-4.

Mr. Gerhard just concluded that the Royals were better than the World Series Champions.

Chris Golledge 5 years, 3 months ago

Follow-up to LesBlevins.

Lee makes no mention that relative concentration of water vapor decreases with altitude (closely related to temperature) and CO2 is pretty uniform. The density of the air decreases with altitude in a non-linear manner, and these relationships affect the effect that CO2 has. And, on an absolute scale, the earth's mean temperature is about 300 K; so, thinking that doubling CO2 only changes that only a little is pretty close. Expecting a 1% change, with feedbacks included, comes out to about 3 degrees C, which is about the middle of the expected change.

And what the heck does this mean?
"Effects of temperature change are absolutely independent of the cause of the temperature change." What? This is the same as saying that changing the surface albedo of millions of square miles of the surface from 90% reflective to 90% absorbent has absolutely no effect. That's just nonsense.

As for hockey sticks, here, take a look at a picture of the results of 10 independent studies.

2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png

2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png

Hmm, something unusual going on over there on the right or not?

remember_username 5 years, 3 months ago

Satirical - Do you believe that the global climate, on average, is warming? If so, do you believe the warming trend is at least partially a result of anthropogenic sources?

Chris Golledge 5 years, 3 months ago

georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says…

How do you in fact make a carbon atom?

OK George, what the heck. You cook (fuse) hydrogen in a star to form helium, and cook helium to produce carbon. More details readily available via a web search or a classroom near you.

I believe today's topic relates to leveraging the high chemical potential energy of carbon-based fossil fuels, normally found underground and sequestered from our biosphere, to supply energy for our industrial society and in the process releasing CO2, of lower chemical potential energy, into the biosphere, and the effects that might have on the biosphere. I'm not sure how your question relates to today's topic.

Chris Golledge 5 years, 3 months ago

I'm having trouble reconciling these statements:

"Mar 30, 2009...Arctic sea ice extent reached its maximum extent for the year, marking the beginning of the melt season. This year’s maximum was the fifth lowest in the satellite record...The maximum extent was 720,000 square kilometers (278,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average of 15.86 million square kilometers (6.12 million square miles), making it the fifth-lowest maximum extent in the satellite record. The six lowest maximum extents since 1979 have all occurred in the last six years (2004 to 2009)." http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/033009.html

"The 2009 Antarctic maximum ice extent was significantly above the 30-year average."

Mr Gerhard, please site your source.

Flap Doodle 5 years, 3 months ago

The Goreacle caught out again. “…I am a scientist, not a climatologist, so I don’t dabble in climatology. My speciality is the epidemiology of mosquito-borne diseases. As the film began, I knew Mr Gore would get to mosquitoes: they’re a favourite with climate-change activists. When he got to them, it was all I feared. In his serious voice, Mr Gore presented a nifty animation, a band of little mosquitoes fluttering their way up the slopes of a snow-capped mountain, and he repeated the old line: Nairobi used to be ‘above the mosquito line, the limit at which mosquitoes can survive, but now…’ Those little mosquitoes kept climbing. The truth? Nairobi means ‘the place of cool waters’ in the Masai language. The town grew up around a camp, set up in 1899 during the construction of a railway, the famous ‘Lunatic Express’. There certainly was water there — and mosquitoes. From the start, the place was plagued with malaria, so much so that a few years later doctors tried to have the whole town moved to a healthier place. By 1927, the disease had become such a plague in the ‘White Highlands’ that £40,000 (equivalent to about £350,000 today) was earmarked for malaria control. The authorities understood the root of the problem: forest clearance had created the perfect breeding places for mosquitoes. The disease was present as high as 2,500m above sea level; the mosquitoes were observed at 3,000m. And Nairobi? 1,680m….” http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/5592863/the-inconvenient-truth-about-malaria.thtml

Chris Golledge 5 years, 3 months ago

Yeap, sea ice extent in Antarctica is increasing. http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdf

Mr. Gerhard might be implying that this means the globe is not getting warmer. Factors of salinity and density come into play and make it difficult to explain in this forum. However, if Gerhard is implying that the increase in ice means that the temperature in Antarctica is getting colder, and further, that somehow this offsets the warming observed globally, well, it's another one of his true, but misleading statements. A statement that Antarctic is getting colder is incompatible with the observed melting events working their way southward.

notajayhawk 5 years, 3 months ago

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

"So your logic is…any scientist that chooses a field of work wherein s/he gets paid well, must have became a scientist only for the money…and therefore isn’t really a scientist….and their observations are necessarily false?"

Come on now, Satirical, after all this time you should know that according to boohoozo, anyone that makes money can't be trusted.

BigPrune 5 years, 3 months ago

Thank God for Lee Gerhard. His voice of reason is refreshing.

Why do liberals always have a convoluted way of thinking? Is it the drugs they want legalized? Is it the congested apartment buildings they want everyone to live in? Is it their no growth = smart growth mentality? Is it their taxpayer subsidized bus system (with bike racks on front) that nobody but themselves ride so they can save the earth at 5 mpg with dirty diesel? Is it all the taxpayer subsidized bicycle paths that lay about the city that very few people use - with the liberals riding in the street next to the bike path anyway? Is it their only a good business is a government run business attitude?

Utopia to them is no running water, no electricity, no automobile, and vegan only dining with a chamber pot in every bedroom (a much needed necessity).

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

Well, there's certainly no arguing with the "logic" of the last two posts.

melott 5 years, 3 months ago

Actually, local bikers really irritate me, and I have a Chevy Tahoe.
I also love red meat. But I have to fulfill your stereotypes, so I'll tell you that I mostly eat buffalo, and keep the SUV parked and walk to work.

Flap Doodle 5 years, 3 months ago

Since Western technology is destroying the world (according some folks) we should prevent Third World nations from using electricity & internal combustion engines & the other tools of the white devils. Save them in spite of themselves. We could do it for the children!

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

"we should prevent Third World nations from using electricity & internal combustion engines & the other tools"

While we all know you really couldn't care less about the children, probably not even your own, snap, this really is the major obstacle to reducing or reversing global warming. Folks in the US use 40-50 times as much energy and other resources as billions of folks elsewhere do. It would take several extra planets' worth of resources for everyone to be as gluttonous as you are. Even if global warming were a myth, they're going to want theirs, and what's theirs will very likely be what used to be ours.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

Well, considering that your core belief is that "Greed is Good," I can only surmise that you just convinced yourself of the legitimacy of the science behind the theories of global warming and human-induced climate change, Pil.

You go girl!!!

Flap Doodle 5 years, 3 months ago

For someone who doesn't know me at all,, bozo sure pretends he knows a lot about me. More delusional behavior from the kool-aid drinkers. How's that hopenchange working out for you?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

"How's that hopenchange working out for you?"

Things are probably better than if McCain had won, but I didn't vote for either of them.

But at least if McCain had won, Republicans would have been blamed for the failure of Republican policies. In reaction to the impending failures of Obama's primarily Republican-lite performance, voters in 2010 may jump out of the pan, and into the fire.

Chris Golledge 5 years, 3 months ago

Irony.

Gerhard's presentation of what is "known" has been called into question by what amounts to no more than a freshman year level of understanding science courses. There have been no refutations of these debunks based on an understanding of the physical world. Right here in this article are a number of half-truths that can be readily verified as such; yet, at the same time, he complains of "The whistleblower release of e-mails and files from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University has demonstrated scientific malfeasance and a sickening violation of scientific ethics."

The statement itself is yet another example of misleading presupositions. A) This has been claimed, but not verified. B) Who said it was a whistleblower? And, whistleblower is a term that implies something was systemically wrong in the first place, and going back to A, that has not been established.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

Yep, cg22165, as with most deniers, Gerhard's forte isn't a command of facts or logic, but rather, in the spirit of the season, in spinning like a dreidel.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

"One “opinion” he states is that 1934 was the warmest year during this century."

And even if it's more than just opinion, it was temperature data for N. America only, and not the entire world, which makes it mostly irrelevant in a discussion of global warming.

Brent Garner 5 years, 3 months ago

Mr. Melott, if Mr. Gerhard's bio makes him biased perhaps we should ask what your bio and background would reveal regarding your bias.

When I learned about the scientific method in school one of the requirements was that others could take your theory, your data, your methods and duplicate the results. I note, interestingly, that the East Anglia crowd has admitted that they have discarded their original data which makes verification by others impossible, yet we are expected to believe their results. Similarly, NASA has refused to release their data for review. A lawsuit is not in progress attempting to force that release when NASA refused to comply with a FOIA request for over 3 years. These actions by both East Anglia and NASA do not go very far in engendering trust and confidence in either themselves or their conclusions.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

You've got that mantra well memorized, larry. Just keeping repeating that loudly, over and over, and you'll never have to hear anything that's too difficult for you to understand.

Bliss out, dude.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

Well, LO, at least you weren't long-winded in admitting that you have no constructive rejoinder to his post.

Chris Golledge 5 years, 3 months ago

bkgarner (Brent Garner) says… ... I note, interestingly, that the East Anglia crowd has admitted that they have discarded their original data which makes verification by others impossible, yet we are expected to believe their results. Similarly, NASA has refused to release their data for review.

Brent, what would you call this? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

a_flock_of_jayhawks 5 years, 3 months ago

Jacob123 (Anonymous) says…

"Hey! I found a carbon molecule where do I turn it in?"

You should see a doctor to have that removed. They can safely dispose of it.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

Really, flock, can't you think of something less drastic for poor jacob than the complete removal of the brain?

Left_handed 5 years, 3 months ago

georgeofwesternkansas,

The whole climate change religion is based on dubious 'science' to begin with. The greenhouse effect is caused when solar heating causes air to warm, and the heat is trapped because the greenhouse structure prevents heat transfer by convection. The so-called greenhouse gases actually transfer heat to the surrounding atmosphere by convection, which is not the 'greenhouse effect'.

The constant yapping about 'carbon' is another example of just how technically bereft the whole movement is. The supposed culprit is 'carbon dioxide', which is not the same as 'carbon', which exists primarily in two allotrophic forms, graphite and diamond.

In short, don't expect anything resembling cogent science from a worshipper at the altar of 'Climate Change'.

JSpizias 5 years, 3 months ago

Want some facts about climate change rather than propaganda. See: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/ http://climateaudit.org/ http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/

Check our system for monitoring surface T in the US. www.surfacestations.org The majority of the stations have possible measurement errors equal to or greater than 2 degrees Centigrade or 3.6 degrees F. Yet they report temperatures to a tenth of a degree Farenheit!

Want some actual science? See Stainforth's comments about climate prediction: http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1857/2145.full "Confidence, uncertainty and decision-support relevance in climate predictions Stainforth et al. Proc. Royal Soc. ...the problem is one of extrapolation. It is therefore inappropriate to apply any of the currently available generic techniques which utilize observations to calibrate or weight models to produce forecast probabilities for the real world. To do so is misleading to the users of climate science in wider society"...

The relationship between earth temperature and CO2 levels by Stott et al. 2007 Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming Lowell Stott,1* Axel Timmermann,2 Robert Thunell3 Science vol 318 pp435-438 "Deep-sea temperatures warmed by ~2°C between 19 and 17 thousand years before the present (ky B.P.), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical–surface-ocean warming by ~1000 years. The cause of this deglacial deep-water warming does not lie within the tropics, nor can its early onset between 19 and 17 ky B.P. be attributed to CO2 forcing. Increasing austral-spring insolation combined with sea-ice albedo feedbacks appear to be the key factors responsible for this warming." I have just finished reading Nassim Talib's book (The Black Swan) which I think should be required reading for climate scientists, especially the chapter on the Scandal of Prediction. I have also just read Richard Feynman's book, The Meaning of It All, a series of 3 lectures given at U. Washington in 1963. The first two lectures are The Uncertainty of Science and The Uncertainty of Values. Quoting from lecture 1, page 23 "All scientific knowledge is uncertain. This experience with doubt and uncertainty is important. I believe this is of very great value, and one that extends beyond the sciences. I believe that to solve any problem that has never been solved before, you have to leave the door to the unknown ajar. You have to permit the possibility that you do not have it exactly right. Otherwise, if you have made up your mind already, you might not solve it."

See also Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit. http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/W/Jonathan.D.Wren-1/The%20Fine%20Art%20of%20Baloney%20Detection.htm So much for "scientific consensus" about anything.

Flap Doodle 5 years, 3 months ago

How warm is the world getting? “Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) -- World leaders flying into Copenhagen today to discuss a solution to global warming will first face freezing weather as a blizzard dumped 10 centimeters (4 inches) of snow on the Danish capital overnight. “Temperatures will stay low at least the next three days,” Henning Gisseloe, an official at Denmark’s Meteorological Institute, said today by telephone, forecasting more snow in coming days. “There’s a good chance of a white Christmas.” “ http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601130&sid=a5wStc0K6jhY (laughter)

a_flock_of_jayhawks 5 years, 3 months ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

"Really, flock, can't you think of something less drastic for poor jacob than the complete removal of the brain?"

It never got any use anyway and has atrophied beyond rehabilitation, leaving any possibility of ever being capable of reasoning very slim.

Godot 5 years, 3 months ago

From James Delingpole, from Rionovosta, via the Ria Novosti agency, posted on Icecap. (Hat Tip: Richard North)

"Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.

What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/

Flap Doodle 5 years, 3 months ago

You think Dear Leader is going all the way to Copenhagen to come back empty-handed a second time this year? Imagine the carbon footprint he's creating.

JSpizias 5 years, 3 months ago

Porch_Person, I am sure a person with your demonstrated scientific knowledge knows how to do a linear regression analysis (average T versus year for the 4 seasons). Go to the following NOAA site and analyze the data for the average Kansas City temperature (as measured at the Pleasant Hill USHCN site) since 1889 for the four seasons: http://www.crh.noaa.gov/eax//localclimate/seasrank/ Spring Rankings by Temperature Summer Rankings by Temperature Fall Rankings by Temperature Winter Rankings by Temperature

Download the data and do a linear regression of the measured average T versus year observed. What you will find is that there has been no statistically significant change in temperature for over 100 years as measured by r square. The same is true for the average of the state of South Carolina. It is too bad we can't display graphs on this site or I could save you some work. But now you can see for yourself.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

I'm just curious, jspizias, how many such linear regressions have you done for various reporting stations around the world?

Chris Golledge 5 years, 3 months ago

JSpizias.

I'll second what JABOTB said, but I'm also wondering why you think a linear test is appropriate for testing the fit of data to a curve.

JSpizias 5 years, 3 months ago

Just Another Bozo on the Bus, I haven't analyzed any outside the US. But what I have seen and read convinces me that the US data, which is probably the best in the world, has numerous problems such as urban heat island effects, etc. So in my opinion, we lack, what I as a scientist, consider good data, even for the US. Look at the data from the site below and see what quality of data we have from the US HCN stations. There is a nice graph of the distributions of the stations rated according to NOAA criteria at: www.surfacestations.org And then look at what happened with the East Anglia data where proxy data is eliminated apparently because they wished to "hide the decline". Here is another reason why I question current dogma. http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/16/iearussia-hadley-center-probably-tampered-with-russian-climate-data/ For the record, I think man is altering the earth's environment through a variety of actions, that unknown or poorly known factors such as oceanic circulation play crucial roles, as does natural climate variability. I do not believe that the data show CO2 is the predominant driver of any anthropogenic climate change that may be occurring. I think what transpires in climate science is very different from the hard science in which I spent my career. Read the papers I previously cited by Stainforth and Stott. Von Storch found in a survey several years ago that a majority of climate scientists do not think climate can be predicted even 10 years in advance, much less 100 years. I think what we are seeing with climate is similar to similar events that occurred in the early 20th century with eugenics and Lysenkoism. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/climate-change-in-kansas-city-a-guest-weblog-by-dr-lynwood-yarbrough/

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

This is from an interesting exchange between Bart Verheggen and Roger Peilke, with regard to Peilke's behavior towards climate scientists.

http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/comment-on-pielke-jr/

"9. In their political enthusiasm, some leading scientists have behaved badly. (Pielke) Without specifics, this is impossible to answer, and is bound to lead to even more misunderstanding. I could try reading your mind of course. You probably have some of your critics in mind, notably some RealClimate scientists as well as Hansen, who you have criticized. I find this very problematic. In most instances that I followed (involving Gavin Schmidt, Michael Tobis, Eric Steig, Hansen, Briffa at different occasions), I have found your and others’ criticisms off base, besides the point, largely irrelevant to the bigger picture and having the smell of a smear campaign (science-bashing). As I commented regarding the latest McIntyre affair (see my review here): “A lot of scientists are getting understandably frustrated with self-proclaimed auditors of science (and their supporters) who cast doubt about a whole scientific field by blowing minor flaws out of proportion and insinuate accusations of scientific misconduct”. Against this backdrop of a lot of people ready to embrace any little nitpicked criticism as if it overthrows the whole scientific consensus, and ignore the mountain of evidence in favour of this consensus, I can perfectly well understand that a lot of scientists (and their supporters) are getting frustrated having to deal with this behavior and (mostly) fake arguments. In the grand scheme of things, the big problem as I see it is the contempt of science and its practitioners by a sizeable segment of the general public and some high profile bloggers; if a scientist responds to faux criticism in a frustrated tone, I find that a minor flaw in comparison. Granted, they (climate scientists) are your subject of study, so you naturally focus on their behaviour, but at the same time, please consider the context in which they operate, as well as the main message they are trying to convey. In light of this, your claim that “bad behavior by the folks at Real Climate does more to hurt the cause for action than the political actions of the skeptics” is preposterous. William Connolley brought up Fred Singer as the most obvious example."

MaxLayman 5 years, 3 months ago

With all the emphasis on CO2, would I be off topic if I brought up the Maunder Minimum?

I'm trying to help my grandson on his Climategate project.

Seems to me that there is more evidence than CO2 levels, and manmade causes for climate changes? Sunspots, tree rings, and maybe a Stradivarius thrown in there.

I consider myself a little more qualified than Algore, and twice as observant over the last 67 years of my life. Just say'n...

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

And let me guess, everything you know about "Climategate" is from skeptics on Fox News, etc, right, max?

MaxLayman 5 years, 3 months ago

Larry, Thank you for the welcome. The environment that I retired from doesn't suffer fools, gladly.

When you are traveling Mach 1.92 at 40,000', you don't want to sneeze.

Bozo, I learned in Earth Science (9th grade, circa 1957) that there was a correlation between tree ring growth and sunspot activity. I was just wondering if any of you scientists have done an ANOVA, or some other study to confirm, or dispute that. No need to get nasty.

Just the facts man, just the facts...

MaxLayman 5 years, 3 months ago

Back in the 70's the climate experts said we were going to have an ice age. I retired from the Marine Corps in 1981, and passed up a job in Michigan to avoid the glaciers (well, I don't care for cold climates, after cold weather survival training in the mountains). Moved to Florida and now south Texas (God's country).

So, where is this global warming?

The Maunder Minimum coincided with the Little Ice Age, and I understand that the Thames River froze over in London. Anybody got any links to that information?

What caused the freeze? Any correlation to sun spot activity? [This is the place to come for discussion on the facts, and climate change, isn't it?]

melott 5 years, 3 months ago

MaxLayman: This is an area of interest of mine. It seems that the little ice age coincided with a long period of low sunspot activity. It's still conjecture, but the cold climates may have been induced by either lower solar luminosity ormore cosmic rays. (When there is less solar activity we get hit by more cosmic rays from outside our solar system).

Many people think cosmic rays help create cloud cover which cools the climate. I think these ideas are reasonable. I also think that since we are coming onto a low point in an 80 year sunspot cycle, we may see some cooling effect in the coming decade. I mentioned this in my earlier column. However, it does not appear that this effect is nearly as powerful as the effect of greenhouse gases. My shoot-from-the-hip prediction is that we'll see a levelling off of warming for a decade, then it will start up again. But I wouldn't place strong odds that I am right about this levelling off.

Some people who are interested in the solar/cosmic ray idea try to explain everything. People can fall in love with one idea, and try to use it everywhere. For a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

The ice age thing came from Newsweek and other magazines. A few scientists had that idea. However, the consensus of the time was that they didn't know enough to make any reliable predictions. They listed a number of possibilities including ice ages and global warming. Sometimes the deniers will quote part of this in an attempt to pretend that the scientific community as a whole predicted an ice age.

I appreciate the opportunity to inject some substance into this name-calling.

JSpizias 5 years, 3 months ago

Recently, a paper appeared in Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci about loss of glaciers. I wrote the following to the senior author. "I saw a reference to your most recent PNAS paper (Glacier Loss on Kilimanjaro Continues Unabated). I read it with much interest as well as your National Academy Profile. In this profile it is noted regarding the loss of glacier ice: "This alarming trend has turned xxxxxxx into both a_ scientist and an _advocate for the cause to protect these precious commodities, and his effort o_n both fronts earned him an election to the National Academy of Sciences in 2005_ (I remember the days when it was ones science that got one elected to the Academy, people like my postdoctoral mentor, YYYYYYY). I also found that you were an advisor for the Gore film "An Inconvenient Truth" (a documentary it ain't!-it is an example of advocacy at its worst).
...I was concerned at the alarmism and advocacy that was apparent in many publications in this area of research. One of the publications was a paper on the glaciers of Kilimanjaro by Mote and Kaser. After reading your article I went back and reread their article. They noted that the temperature over most of the glacier was almost always well below the freezing point of water and concluded that the vast majority of the loss of ice was due to sublimation. They also noted "The first and only paper asserting that the glacier shrinking on Kibo was associated with rising air temperatures was published in 2000 by XXXXXXX and co-authors". I think they are correct in their conclusion and their work appears sound. I think your current paper in PNAS is an example of advocacy, not science".

MaxLayman 5 years, 3 months ago

"melott", Thank you Sir for your explanation. I had read that on line, already in various forms. Plus, I have an appreciation for "clouds" forming from radiation tracks. My friend, Bruce, built a "Wilson Cloud Chamber" from a science bell jar with an old radium dial for a radiation source. We actually saw a "track" appear, and disappear in a blink, but two observers from two different angles could see that whatever particle it was didn't come from the radium (which probably wasn't going to work, anyway). We kept trying, until I over pressurized the bell jar and there went Bruce's Science Project.

New question: Is there a direct correlation with the 11/22 year sunspot cycles and tree ring dimensions?

This was in my high school text book (1957, without a footnote, and with no statistical significance given). That was in the days before the Van Allen radiation belt had been discovered and no satellites to observe solar flares.

It always fascinated me as a teenager (my science project was to observe sunspots for a couple of months using my telescope to project an image on paper circles, plotting them with a pencil). More fun and curiosity, than science...

I am e-mailing my grandson in Colorado who is questioning global warming (we saw a chart where the "green line" stops abruptly and disappears -- too bad I can't copy it onto this blog, like other web sites, to explain our question, better). Actually I have several jpg files that show what was purportedly discovered from the "hacked e-mails". I need to put all that in terms that a 12 year old (but, very bright for his age) would be able to comprehend.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

"Just the facts man, just the facts…"

OK

"Back in the 70's the climate experts said we were going to have an ice age. "

Not really. The consensus at the time (though not as strong as now) was that global warming was much more likely than an ice age.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

JSpizias-- even if the disappearing glacier on Kilimanjaro is happening because of sublimation rather than melting, there must be some cause to its disappearance, isn't there?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

"Actually I have several jpg files that show what was purportedly discovered from the “hacked e-mails”. "

AP recently reviewed all of those emails, and found no indication that data were cooked, faked or concealed. They found no information that could somehow be construed as "debunking" the scientific consensus on global warming.

Did you arrive at different conclusions, and if so, could you cite passages from these emails that led to you these conclusions?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

"I think your current paper in PNAS is an example of advocacy, not science”."

Do you think the information in the abstract (from PNAS) is merely "advocacy?" Do you dispute the data contained in it?

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/30/0906029106.abstract

"Glacier loss on Kilimanjaro continues unabated L. G. Thompsona,b,1, H. H. Brechera, E. Mosley-Thompsona,c, D. R. Hardyd and B. G. Marka,c + Author Affiliations

aByrd Polar Research Center, Ohio State University, 108 Scott Hall, 1090 Carmack Road, Columbus, OH 43210; bSchool of Earth Sciences, Ohio State University, 125 South Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210; cDepartment of Geography, Ohio State University, 154 North Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210; and dDepartment of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, 236 Hasbrouck, Amherst, MA 01003 Edited by James E. Hansen, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY, and approved September 22, 2009 (received for review June 1, 2009)

Abstract

The dramatic loss of Kilimanjaro's ice cover has attracted global attention. The three remaining ice fields on the plateau and the slopes are both shrinking laterally and rapidly thinning. Summit ice cover (areal extent) decreased ≈1% per year from 1912 to 1953 and ≈2.5% per year from 1989 to 2007. Of the ice cover present in 1912, 85% has disappeared and 26% of that present in 2000 is now gone. From 2000 to 2007 thinning (surface lowering) at the summits of the Northern and Southern Ice Fields was ≈1.9 and ≈5.1 m, respectively, which based on ice thicknesses at the summit drill sites in 2000 represents a thinning of ≈3.6% and ≈24%, respectively. Furtwängler Glacier thinned ≈50% at the drill site between 2000 and 2009. Ice volume changes (2000–2007) calculated for two ice fields reveal that nearly equivalent ice volumes are now being lost to thinning and lateral shrinking. The relative importance of different climatological drivers remains an area of active inquiry, yet several points bear consideration. Kilimanjaro's ice loss is contemporaneous with widespread glacier retreat in mid to low latitudes. The Northern Ice Field has persisted at least 11,700 years and survived a widespread drought ≈4,200 years ago that lasted ≈300 years. We present additional evidence that the combination of processes driving the current shrinking and thinning of Kilimanjaro's ice fields is unique within an 11,700-year perspective. If current climatological conditions are sustained, the ice fields atop Kilimanjaro and on its flanks will likely disappear within several decades."

Chris Golledge 5 years, 3 months ago

JSpizias, I'm not sure I got your point on the Kilimanjaro glacier. If it had something to do with sublimation versus melting, you are aware that the rate of sublimation increases with temperature, right?

Chris Golledge 5 years, 3 months ago

"...the experts said we were going to have an ice age.."

I don't know how many times I've heard this repeated. I do know no one has sited any original research article(s) where this was put forth as a possibility when I asked. I actually looked it up once, there were 1-3 articles along this line. That's not exactly a majority of experts.

boltzmann 5 years, 3 months ago

LarryNative (Anonymous) says… "So Porch, first google hit on your hero:

Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA's vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears. …"

Actually, if you google Theon you can find out that he claims to have been Hansen's supervisor, but in reality he was not - in the usual definition of the word. Also, he retired in 1994, which doesn't put him in a position to determine whether or not he was "muzzled" during G.W. Bush's administration.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

Here's a video that reviews what the scientific views on "global warming" and "global cooling" were throughout the 50's-70's. If you're wedded to the myth of a scientific consensus about a new ice age, I recommend you not watch it.

http://www.grist.org/article/climate-denial-crock-of-the-weekclimate-deniers-love-the-70s-the-remix/

melott 5 years, 3 months ago

MaxLayman: I don't know about the tree right correlation, but it sounds reasonable that it might exist. A good place to look things up is http://www.realclimate.org/ "climate science by climate scientists"

Chris Golledge 5 years, 3 months ago

I should have mentioned that in context, the people who said the earth could go into another ice age did not say it was eminent. In the course of geologic time, if natural events are allowed to proceed, it is very likely that the circumstances which caused it before will happen again. It's another of those, yeah, but it's not relevant to the current conversation, factoids.

MaxLayman 5 years, 3 months ago

OK, I went to greenman3610, and watched the video.

It baits the question as to why we didn't go nuclear power a long time ago... Seems to me to be more Political Science than Physical Science.

Having lived through that era, and having to endure all the doomsday scenarios in grad school, it was never clear to me who was telling the truth and who was playing with computer models (MIT, Club of Rome, Limits to Growth,...). And, it continues on into today. May I be a Global Warming skeptic? Is there Global Warming? Is it man made? Can we do anything about it?

So, back to my original search; Anybody have any links to tree ring growth cycles and sunspot activity?

georgeofwesternkansas 5 years, 3 months ago

Bozo you argument is so old and lame, you have been exposed and you just don't like it, because as we all know you have never been wrong.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

"It baits the question as to why we didn't go nuclear power a long time ago… Seems to me to be more Political Science than Physical Science."

Nuclear power clearly comes with its own, quite significant, risks, one of which is that constructing and operating them requires the use of a lot of fossil fuels. Nevertheless, many climate scientists, including James Hansen, advocate the development of nuclear power because they think the risks it presents are much less than that of global warming.

Personally, I think there are much better, and safer, ways to meet our energy needs, and at the very top of the list is conservation, which, relatively speaking is almost free, but still gets the best overall results.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

"Bozo you argument is so old and lame,"

At least I have one.

georgeofwesternkansas 5 years, 3 months ago

Bozo you do have an argument, a manufactured one, very little science, lots of politics.

gr 5 years, 3 months ago

bozo: "Regarding point #2— All of the billions of tons of fossil fuels we are now burning up and shooting into the atmosphere were sequestered during a time of higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and much higher global temperatures, over a period of millions of years."

Would you be saying that carbon-14 dating might need to account for that?

"The issue is GLOBAL climate change, not what happens in North America during one summer."

Or 30 years, I might add.

Question: Which would be (or has been!) more devastating - global warming or global cooling?

Chris Golledge 5 years, 3 months ago

If anyone is interested, here's something about us from overseas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8419733.stm

I know, it's not a homegrown resource reference like CNN or Fox, but at least the BBC employs a science staff.

JSpizias 5 years, 3 months ago

Check the reference below (better, Google "Mote Kaser Glacier" since some links don't work). See for yourself. To answer the question about temperature effects on sublimation check the second reference. Temperature, relative humidity, and other factors affect sublimation rates. In any dynamic system the state will be determined by the relative rates of formation and loss. Mote and Kaser, two of the world's leading authorities on glaciers report that the glaciers are not melting as reported by Thompson and coworkers. They report no warming of air around the glacier-it is always below freezing. Hence their conclusion is that the process is driven by sublimation (loss) and decreased snowfall (decreased formation). Note that this is specifically for glaciers at high elevation and that there are some glaciers losing mass because of increases in air T. There is also an excellent editorial in the Seattle Times regarding their findings.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2003745061_moteed13.html

The Shrinking Glaciers of Kilimanjaro: Can Global Warming Be Blamed?

"But Mote and Kaser say that the Kilimanjaro glaciers are not melting but sublimating—turning straight to vapor—under the direct action of solar radiation at temperatures that remain below freezing. Whatever is happening elsewhere, Kilimanjaro's ice seems not to be succumbing to climate change."

Sublimation rate and the mass-transfer coefficient for snow sublimation Int. J. Heat and Mass Transfer Thomas A. Neumanna, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Mary R. Albertb, Chandler Engela, c, Zoe Courvilleb and Frank Perronb

from the abstract: .."Sublimation of snow is a fundamental process that affects the crystal structure of snow, and is important for ice core interpretation, remote sensing, snow hydrology and chemical processes in snow. Prior investigations have inferred the sublimation rate from energy, isotopic, or mass-balance calculations using field data. Consequently, these studies were unable to control many of the environmental parameters which determine sublimation rate (e.g. temperature, relative humidity, snow microstructure)."...

Flap Doodle 5 years, 3 months ago

An Indian news service is reporting that China & India have walked out of the Copenhagen talks. Looks like Dear Leader's not going to get a B+ for this trip.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

cg22165--

Interesting piece on the BBC-- I especially like the opening bit from the oil man saying global warming is just like the hysteria about Y2K. But the fact is, Y2K could have been a very real disaster (though not as big as climate change could be,) but very real measures were taken to prevent it.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

JSpizias-- Mote's and Kaser's conclusions about Kilimanjaro are interesting, but they both say that glaciers elsewhere throughout the world are melting because of global warming, not sublimation caused by solar radiation. Do you agree with them?

Chris Golledge 5 years, 3 months ago

JSpizias (Anonymous) says…

"Check the reference below (better, Google “Mote Kaser Glacier” since some links don't work). See for yourself. To answer the question about temperature effects on sublimation check the second reference. Temperature, relative humidity, and other factors affect sublimation rates. In any dynamic system the state will be determined by the relative rates of formation and loss. Mote and Kaser, two of the world's leading authorities on glaciers report that the glaciers are not melting as reported by Thompson and coworkers. "

Again, yeah, I know, but what is your point? I didn't say temperature is the only factor affecting sublimation. Also, can you point out where Thompson, et al. say that it is melting? I'm not seeing it.

"They report no warming of air around the glacier-it is always below freezing."

They report that the air is always below freezing, but I don't see where they say that there has been no warming. Unless, are you trying to infer that all temperatures below the freezing point of water are equally warm?

JSpizias 5 years, 3 months ago

See the following editorial by a climate scientist in the WSJ today. How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html

Climate is not uniform and is always changing, even in different regions of the same hemisphere. While the snow and ice coverage in the Arctic has until recently been in significant decline, snow and ice coverage in the Antarctic has increased.

Read the following by Dr. Richard Keen, professor of Climate Science at Colorado and check out his reference sources. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/dr-richard-keens-global-warming-quiz/

Bozo, Read the paper by Mote and Kaser. I have cited above the comment Mote and Kaser made regarding melting on Kilimanjaro. From Mote and Kaser: “The first and only paper asserting that the glacier shrinking on Kibo was associated with rising air temperatures was published in 2000 by xxxxxxx and co-authors”.

Last, does it not concern you that election to our highest scientific honor society in the US (National Academy of Sciences) now is electing people not only for their contributions to science but also their advocacy? As a scientist, it greatly concerns me because I think it cheapens the meaning of election to this society of distinguished scientists.

Chris Golledge 5 years, 3 months ago

JSpizias (Anonymous) says… ...

"Climate is not uniform and is always changing, even in different regions of the same hemisphere."

Again, yeah, so? That statement is true, but in no way says that humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere is not having an effect.

"While the snow and ice coverage in the Arctic has until recently been in significant decline, snow and ice coverage in the Antarctic has increased. "

More snow in Antarctica isn't that surprising. Antarctica is a continent surrounded by a warming ocean. Warmer water adds more moisture to the air than cooler water. More moisture in the air means more precipitation. Where the temperatures remain below freezing, this precipitation will fall as snow.

Care to respond to my earlier comments?

tbaker 5 years, 3 months ago

About 12,000 years ago, there was a 900-foot thick glacier sitting on top of my 20 acres in southern Leavenworth county. It had sat there about 50,000 years.

Then one day about 12,000 years ago it began to get warmer and the glacier melted, substantially increasing my property value.

Man's activities did not melt the glacier. Until we know what did melt the glacier, it is simply criminal to suppose today's climate debate needs to be centered on taxing the crap out of everyone based entirely on very unsettled science.

Poverty (which will be terribly exacerbated by said taxation) kills and order of magnitude more people around the world each day than some notion of "climate change." At present, the entire global warming debate is nothing more than a poorly camouflaged attack against Capitalism by tired old communists and hoards of ignorant socialist populations who want an excuse to loot the world's productive countries.

Ken Lassman 5 years, 3 months ago

First of all, the Kansan Ice Age occurred some 600,000 to a million years ago; the ice age some 12,000 years ago didn't come anywhere near your 20 acres in Leavenworth county.

Secondly, saying that prehistoric humanity didn't melt the glaciers can be correct and have nothing to do with modern human's impact on global climate by spewing millions upon millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year.

Thirdly, science technically speaking is never settled, even in the case of the theory of gravity, or the theory of electrommagnetic radiation (read: light, radiowaves, xrays, etc.) We are learning much more about the complexities of climate dynamics as our models are able to incorporate more and more variables, and finer data collection, but there is a dramatically increased convergence of consensus about the basics of climate dynamics over the past decade, and the consensus is virtually unanimous about the reality of humanity's role in the changes we are seeing.

Finally, if the global economic forces that drive CO2 emssions are either socialist, communist or capitalist in nature, then why is China and the US the 2 biggest producers? The bottom line is that the economic engines that drive ANY terrestrial economic system simply has to be fueled by different energy sources that don't emit so much CO2, AND the energy must be used much, much more efficiently than it is currently being used.

JSpizias 5 years, 3 months ago

Does anyone want to provide an explanation of the following data that reports that the deep seas warmed about 1000 years before the CO2 levels rose in the era 19K to 17K before present? Or perhaps explain why the authors conclusions are all wrong?

Science 19 October 2007: Vol. 318. no. 5849, pp. 435 - 438 Reports Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming Lowell Stott,1* Axel Timmermann,2 Robert Thunell3 ...Deep-sea temperatures warmed by ~2°C between 19 and 17 thousand years before the present (ky B.P.), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical–surface-ocean warming by ~1000 years. The cause of this deglacial deep-water warming does not lie within the tropics, nor can its early onset between 19 and 17 ky B.P. be attributed to CO2 forcing. Increasing austral-spring insolation combined with sea-ice albedo feedbacks appear to be the key factors responsible for this warming."

Paul Decelles 5 years, 3 months ago

Good question,

There is certainly a lot we don't know. Is there data on changes in recent deep sea temps? Is it fine grained enough to detect arise in deep sea temps say 700 -,1000 years ago? Sea ice albedo feedbacks...sea ice was melting for some reason, lowering the albedo? How relevant is this to what is happening today?

melott 5 years, 3 months ago

When the Earth warms, the soils (esp permafrost) and seas hold less CO2. Ever shake up a hot bottle of Coke?? CO2 is what makes it fizz. So there is a potentially dangerous feedback loop. Warm the Earth, and these positive feedbacks kick in and warm it more. That's why people worry about the "tipping point".

Paul Decelles 5 years, 3 months ago

Exactly the point that is made on Realclimate. This last summer I got to hike above the tree line at Rocky Mountain National Park and I was amazed at the amount of organic matter in the tundra soil. It was basically peat.

ralphralph 5 years, 3 months ago

Copenhagen ... an imaginary agreement to bring about an imaginary solution to an overblown problem.

Dugetit 5 years, 3 months ago

“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Albert Einstein »

Historical Temperature data manipulated http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgbo1JJHbeo http://climategate.tv/?tag=temperature-record

China Temperature Data Manipulated http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/28/ghcn-china-the-dragon-ate-my-thermometers/

New Zealand Temperature Data Manipulated http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/breaking-nzs-niwa-accused-of-cru-style-temperature-faking.html

Russian Temperature Data Manipulated http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/283971

Australian Temperature Data Manipulated http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero.html

Switzerland Temperature Data Manipulated http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a755f7cb970b-pi

NASA Temperature Data Manipulated http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/

NOAA/NCDC Temperature Data Manipulated http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/11/yet-more-stuff-we-always-suspected-but-its-nice-to-have-proof.html

Programmers say “CRU Programmers MADE UP DATA” http://www.youtube.com/user/SuzieF2 (caution, bad programmer language)

Misleading Sea Temperature warming claims http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/10/22/no-global-warming-signal-in-sea-surface-temperature-data/

World Sea Ice is not retreating at catastrophic rate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-5Xwl...

Why did the EPA censor its own diverse opinion? http://cei.org/news-release/2009/06/25/cei-releases-global-warming-study-censored-epa

Why were dissenting scientists blocked/discouraged/intimidated out of the “Peer Review” process? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular

Co2 rises despite the fact that ten of the hottest days in recent world history were recorded before 1975? Might someone question Co2 as the cause? http://www.co2science.org/ http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001375.html

So you think the science is settled? Environmentalism and science has been hijacked in the name of AGW. It wont be pretty once realized how they’ve been duped.

“If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.” Albert Einstein »

Before Galileo, it was thought that celestial bodies revolved around the Earth. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that AGW is NOT a PROVEN theory. Consensus is not a Scientific term.

Ironically, the Mainstream Media has blown a “Scoop” of gargantuan proportions. The biggest HOAX of all time known to man. Rather, thier reaction is “Move along folks, nothing to see here”. Given the rate of coverage, many won’t realize they’ve been scammed until they read about it in history books. As trillions of taxpayer dollars hang in the balance, I’m surprised that our president has called for a full investigation…. NOT!

MaxLayman 5 years, 3 months ago

Dugetit, Thank you very much for the link; http://climategate.tv/?tag=temperature-record

Now, that is something that I can send to my 12 year old grandson and he can understand.

Marion, Isn't it ironic that Copenhagen has a blizzard and the eastern seaboard of the US is in a white out... Seems like everytime that Al Gore travelled to a climate conference (winter or summer, New York City or wherever) the temperatures have been "unseasonably" cold. I think God has a sense of humor, as he looks down on us mortals. Cheers...

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

"So you think the science is settled? Environmentalism and science has been hijacked in the name of AGW."

Science is never settled. Unfortunately, the vast majority of what is politely call "skepticism" has very little to do with actual science.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

Unless your intent is merely to propagandize your grandson, you should send him this link, as well, Max. Certainly, the emails don't paint a particularly pretty picture of some of the scientists involved, but it's hardly "climategate."

"http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1218402"

"E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don’t support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don’t undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their message. Sometimes, they sounded more like schoolyard taunts than scientific tenets."

MaxLayman 5 years, 3 months ago

Bozo, It would be more helpful, if you didn't enclose your reference in quotation marks, just in case somebody wanted to view what the AP wrote; http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1218402

I find it interesting that when I brought up the global ice age scare of the '70s that somebody points me to Newsweek magazine and how they got it all wrong... Then, we turn around and point to the Associated Press as a defense against the hijacked e-mails?

The video I was referring to was more scientific than whatever else is going on, and it had a young lad (about my grandson's age, under the tutelage of his Dad) doing a statistical analysis of 'urban vs. rural' temperature averages. They simply plugged, official temperature readings, into an Excel spreadsheet and ran the graphs, in a very telling manner. No computer models being run by a super computer... Just the facts, man, just the facts...

I find it very graphic and apt. "Intuitive to the casual observer" as my old Calculus instructor would say... Something that I could wrap my simplistic, aging brain around... Just say'n...

But, that's just my humble opinion. Free speech and all that... :-)

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

Perhaps you should send you grandson this link, as well, and let him make up his own mind, max.

Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

"It would be more helpful, if you didn't enclose your reference in quotation marks, just in case somebody wanted to view what the AP wrote;"

Sorry, I didn't intend to do so.

"I find it interesting that when I brought up the global ice age scare of the '70s that somebody points me to Newsweek magazine and how they got it all wrong…"

We were merely correcting your mistaken belief that there was some sort of scientific consensus around the ice age theory, likely because it's been blown completely out of proportion just to confuse the "casual observor."

MaxLayman 5 years, 3 months ago

Bozo, Please explain this one to me; Programmers say “CRU Programmers made up data” http://www.youtube.com/user/SuzieF2 (caution, bad programmer language)

Ken Lassman 5 years, 3 months ago

While you climate deniers continue to throw trash cans out of your pickup in an attempt to slow down the progress of humanity toward cleaning up its mess, Please take the time to sit down, take a deep breath, and check out what the Chinese have been doing:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/12/21/091221fa_fact_osnos?printable=true

The Chinese dictatorship has known for a while that their huge carbon emissions and pollution cannot go on forever, and since 2001 they have been quietly pouring billions of dollars into developing solar, wind and other renewables, and by doing so, are positioning themselves to be head and shoulders in front of everybody else in these technologies.

Say what you want about our way of using our freedom of speech, which I defend as strongly as the next patriot, but this needless frittering and frattering about whether climate change even exists is so counterproductive that the Chinese are laughing into their sleeves, patiently waiting for us to come too late to the realization that we have no choice but to come crawling up to them to buy the only technologies that have a chance to prevent widespread climatic disruption.

Wake up, folks! Time to roll up our sleeves and get to work! If you're at all interested in an alternative to the Chinese/European dominance of renewables/efficiency, check out the "Reinventing Fire" initiative started by the Rocky Mountain Institute.

MaxLayman 5 years, 3 months ago

I am disappointed with comments that I am seeing, and the ad hominid attacks. Folks are intellectualizing the arguments, instead of dealing with the arguments.

For example, would somebody care to explain; http://www.youtube.com/user/SuzieF2 ???

I'm just a guy on the street corner, watching the traffic...

MaxLayman 5 years, 3 months ago

Maybe another tack, This was posted yesterday by Dugetit; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgbo1JJHbeo

Question the video, the author of the video, the data, the referenced studies, bibliography, etc. (no need to attack the person who posted it).

Ken Lassman 5 years, 3 months ago

Max, Neither of your links worked for me, but judging from their headlines, I think that the Myth vs. Fact link that Bozo gave you above addresses your concerns. If you want to look around that site, there are other excellent rebuttals to all the climategate charges that are being thrown out there as well, including independent verification of the data that was supposedly tampered with in East Anglia.

Finally, I'd be interested to hear your response to the New Yorker article I posted above. Don't you think it's time we start spending our energy adapting to the new realities instead of looking for new ways to deny them?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

"I am disappointed with comments that I am seeing, and the ad hominid attacks."

Which attacks have been ad hominid? Or is your disappointment only that you haven't gotten confirmation of your preconceived misconceptions?

"Folks are intellectualizing the arguments, instead of dealing with the arguments."

I have no idea what that means. Could you please clarify (without over-intellectualizing?)

MaxLayman 5 years, 3 months ago

DougCounty: Those links work, I just checked them again. I don't have any 'concerns' about the links. Just looking for an explanation that refutes them, or attempts to.

Bozo: Intellectualization n. Psychology The act or process of intellectualizing. An unconscious means of protecting oneself from the emotional stress and anxiety associated with confronting painful personal fears or problems by excessive reasoning.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

That was really impressive, max. You totally avoided answering the question while being about as anti-intellectual as possible.

intellectual |ˌintlˈek ch oōəl| • appealing to or requiring use of the intellect • possessing a highly developed intellect

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

"Just looking for an explanation that refutes them, or attempts to."

Links were supplied that did both. Did you look at them?

MaxLayman 5 years, 3 months ago

Yup, I looked and 'no sale'. Did you look at the ones that I referenced?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

You know, max, it's OK if you really don't understand the science, and don't want to make any attempt to understand it. What I don't understand is why you need to come here and justify it. Just pop some popcorn, grab the remote and tune it to Beck, O"Reilly, Limbaugh, et al, and bliss out, dude.

MaxLayman 5 years, 3 months ago

Bozo; you said: "Which attacks have been ad hominid? Or is your disappointment only that you haven't gotten confirmation of your preconceived misconceptions?"

Well, how about the last slur you pronounced on me?

Originally, I came to this site looking for a link on "tree ring growth". Since then, I came across a link (posted by Dugetit) that I found very interesting on it's own merit; ========================== http://www.youtube.com/user/SuzieF2 Update - Climategate - CRU Source Code Explained From: suedeslounge | November 26, 2009 | 19,519 views "I discuss the actual source code that was released in the recent hack of the CRU. The source code confirms the manipulation of climate data by climate scientists." ========================== My B.S. is in Management with a Major in Computer Technology. I coded Fortran computer models on Hollerith cards, compiled on an IBM System 3 for my student projects. Later BASIC linear programming models on my 16K PC (Ohio Scientific C4P) to teach my graduate students modeling solutions in Operations/Logistics Mgmt. (I have an M.S. in Systems Mgmt.)

Watch the video and freeze it at frame 2:15...

Did "suedeslounge" fabricate this critique? Why would he take the time? Which one of your reference links refutes the accusation? How does it refute each "remark statement" that was coded into the "computer model"? Who fabricated what?

Note: I know what goes into a scientific paper and research. My wife is in biology research. I have my name on one of her lab's papers (yes, it was published by a peer reviewed journal). I was only a go-for, working closely with the Principal Investigator... It was an excellent opportunity to see the close attention to detail and the rewrites that were required, as recommendations were made by the staff and sponsor... Doing a search and replace when "alpha" characters were mistakenly translated by a font into "a"... This was a chapter in a text book and it had to be correct... down to the style and format of the footnotes... The data had to be independently verifiable... It had to be as precise as humanly possible...

I put about 6000 references into the database, to support the 500+ that were footnoted in the paper. I was proud to be a part of it (17 years ago) and best of friends with those post-docs.

So, it is my impression (from the video link that I gave above) that the data you claim is valid, is junk science (somebody clearly got caught with their hand in the cookie jar -- e-mails can take on a life of their own).

Oh, why am I so skeptical? A reasonably prudent man would have to be... Do you remember the "cold fusion" hoax? Lot's of hope, but contrived and no substance. It was not replicated (although some claim they could -- darn, I was hoping to be able to put water in the gas tank of my car, too) Some people will do anything to get their name in lights.

MaxLayman 5 years, 3 months ago

That wasn't an analogy. Sure, had alot of folks fooled, though. Seems a couple of institutions signed onboard.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

"Do you remember the “cold fusion” hoax?"

Yes, and I remember previous posts of yours in this thread which indicate that you've clearly bought into the lie that there was scientific consensus in the 70's about an impending ice age.

Neither "cold fusion" nor the "impending ice age" myth have anything to do the science on anthropogenic global warming.

What I think is that you're a skeptic for primarily ideological reasons, and you'll accept about any ole thing you can find on the internet as "proof" of that position.

MaxLayman 5 years, 3 months ago

anthropogenic global warming... hmmm, sounds like a religion, unto it's own. What's the mantra? Why not just "global warming" to start with? I am still waiting for specifics on the programmer with his 'hand in the cookie jar'. Any rebuttal? ========================== http://www.youtube.com/user/SuzieF2 Update - Climategate - CRU Source Code Explained From: suedeslounge | November 26, 2009 | 19,519 views “I discuss the actual source code that was released in the recent hack of the CRU. The source code confirms the manipulation of climate data by climate scientists.” ========================== I can remain neutral. I have nothing to gain by being for, or against whatever you believe. It's OK. We agree to disagree.

MaxLayman 5 years, 3 months ago

function mkp2correlation,indts,depts,remts,t,filter=filter,refperiod=refperiod,$ datathresh=datathresh ; ; THIS WORKS WITH REMTS BEING A 2D ARRAY (nseries,ntime) OF MULTIPLE TIMESERIES ; WHOSE INFLUENCE IS TO BE REMOVED. UNFORTUNATELY THE IDL5.4 p_correlate ; FAILS WITH >1 SERIES TO HOLD CONSTANT, SO I HAVE TO REMOVE THEIR INFLUENCE ; FROM BOTH INDTS AND DEPTS USING MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION AND THEN USE THE ; USUAL correlate FUNCTION ON THE RESIDUALS. ; pro maps12,yrstart,doinfill=doinfill ; ; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions ; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually ; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to ; the real temperatures. ; and later the same programming comment again in another routine:

; ; Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD ; reconstructions ; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually ; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to ; the real temperatures. ================================== Interesting? No? Ref: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

I looked at the video-- it's an unidentified guy of unknown background and qualifications making allegations about who knows what, devoid of any context.

If he wants to submit his findings for peer review (although we have no idea who his "peers" might be,) then at that point, it might actually mean something.

So the situation remains as the AP review of these emails has indicated-- there is no smoking gun in the so-called climategate emails-- just lots of smoke.

MaxLayman 5 years, 3 months ago

porch_person; Now that makes sense, as you state it... But, I am still skeptical as to what was going on. Still seems secretive, and since I don't have to deal with the issue, I won't.

All is not lost, though, because I have come upon a page that might help my grandson do his science project (whatever he settles on). http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_scientific_method.shtml Thanks

Flap Doodle 5 years, 3 months ago

"Anthropogenic Continental Drift. It's real, the science is settled, and it's got to be stopped before the continents all collide in a massive global cataclysm that will threaten the very existence of all of mankind. Cash, checks, and Nobel Peace Prizes will all be gratefully accepted." http://minx.cc/?blog=86&post=296070#c7711034

MaxLayman 5 years, 3 months ago

Marion, Sorry, that was me... I flunked Latin. Got it -- “Ad Hominem” Knew I wasn't going to be a Lawyer, Doctor, or a Priest... So, I became a fighter pilot. Pay wasn't as good, but better than a Priest and much more fun.

Rest of you guys, Sorry... I'm a lost cause; Watching other videos, now; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpWa7VW-OME&NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpX-Kae00s8&feature=related etc... (Goes to part 6)

Bozo, I took your advice and went back to Fox... Just watched their special; Global Warming, or a lot of hot air.

Adios Amigos (note: My Spanish isn't any better than my Latin). Cheers :-)

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

If nothing else, I appreciate your sense of humor, max.

areyouserious 5 years, 3 months ago

Still waiting for 70 degree weather in January.........when can we expect that Al???????

MaxLayman 5 years, 3 months ago

"areyouserious" -- I'm with you on that!

San Antonio on Christmas Eve is usually a sweater on the River Walk by the luminaries. Tonight's weather; Thu 7PM: 49F (Wind Chill 42F) Wind NW 20 Clear Thu 9PM: 43F (Wind Chill 35F) Wind NW 16 Clear Thu 11PM: 40F (Wind Chill 32F) Wind NW 14 Clear

This is bad for the tourist industry, plus all the snow storms delaying flights...

Merry Christmas and we'll see you next year!

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 3 months ago

Thanks, max, for the first of your many worldwide weather reports as you inform your grandson of the difference between short-term, localized weather conditions and global climate patterns.

MaxLayman 5 years, 3 months ago

Just had a Christmas Eve "warming" party at the neighbors. Yes, I'm sober... Well, mostly, but warmer...

We had a viewing party and agreed that this was our favorite video (well, my neighbor the Dentist and I think so, anyway -- The ladies didn't really care, as long as the thermostat was set warm enough to be comfortable -- "Climate Criminals" to be sure).

GLOBAL WARMING the TRUTH (pt2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLQWPCmvcIA&feature=related [continued on part 3] GLOBAL WARMING the TRUTH (pt3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMjUUYMDEdU&feature=related

Just for reference; GLOBAL WARMING the TRUTH (pt1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBijSd9hipU&feature=related

Or, for your entertainment (best with tempered eggnog); CLIMATE-Change: Lord Monckton rap battles Al Gore - Copenhagen - Rap News http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBzR0-...

Cheers!

MaxLayman 5 years, 3 months ago

Paydirt! Memo for the record: I'm starting to find what I've been looking for, about sunspots and weather; GLOBAL WARMING the TRUTH (pt4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niLiJRpoW2U&feature=related

GLOBAL WARMING the TRUTH (pt5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngDmgwLC0Ag&feature=related

Have to pick up the trail for truth after Christmas...

MaxLayman 5 years, 3 months ago

Interesting information on water vapor as a greenhouse gas, CO2 cycles, Henry's Law, the effects of trees and oceans...

Memo: A different perspective

Mach2 5 years, 2 months ago

...not only is it extremely relevant and informative it also shows the humor of the situation.

==================== Environment The Fiction Of Climate Science Gary Sutton, 12.04.09, 10:00 AM ET

Many of you are too young to remember, but in 1975 our government pushed "the coming ice age."

Random House dutifully printed "THE WEATHER CONSPIRACY … coming of the New Ice Age." This may be the only book ever written by 18 authors. All 18 lived just a short sled ride from Washington, D.C. Newsweek fell in line and did a cover issue warning us of global cooling on April 28, 1975. And The New York Times, Aug. 14, 1976, reported "many signs that Earth may be headed for another ice age."

OK, you say, that's media. But what did our rational scientists say?

In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."

You can't blame these scientists for sucking up to the fed's mantra du jour. Scientists live off grants. Remember how Galileo recanted his preaching about the earth revolving around the sun? He, of course, was about to be barbecued by his leaders. Today's scientists merely lose their cash flow. Threats work.

In 2002 I stood in a room of the Smithsonian. One entire wall charted the cooling of our globe over the last 60 million years. This was no straight line. The curve had two steep dips followed by leveling. There were no significant warming periods. Smithsonian scientists inscribed it across some 20 feet of plaster, with timelines.

Last year, I went back. That fresco is painted over. The same curve hides behind smoked glass, shrunk to three feet but showing the same cooling trend. Hey, why should the Smithsonian put its tax-free status at risk? If the politicians decide to whip up public fear in a different direction, get with it, oh ye subsidized servants. Downplay that embarrassing old chart and maybe nobody will notice.

Sorry, I noticed.

Mach2 5 years, 2 months ago

ibid.

It's the job of elected officials to whip up panic. They then get re-elected. Their supporters fall in line.

Al Gore thought he might ride his global warming crusade back toward the White House. If you saw his movie, which opened showing cattle on his farm, you start to understand how shallow this is. The United Nations says that cattle, farting and belching methane, create more global warming than all the SUVs in the world. Even more laughably, Al and his camera crew flew first class for that film, consuming 50% more jet fuel per seat-mile than coach fliers, while his Tennessee mansion sucks as much carbon as 20 average homes.

His PR folks say he's "carbon neutral" due to some trades. I'm unsure of how that works, but, maybe there's a tribe in the Sudan that cannot have a campfire for the next hundred years to cover Al's energy gluttony. I'm just not sophisticated enough to know how that stuff works. But I do understand he flies a private jet when the camera crew is gone.

The fall of Saigon in the '70s may have distracted the shrill pronouncements about the imminent ice ag e. Science's prediction of "A full-blown, 10,000 year ice age," came from its March 1, 1975 issue. The Christian Science Monitor observed that armadillos were retreating south from Nebraska to escape the "global cooling" in its Aug. 27, 1974 issue.

That armadillo caveat seems reminiscent of today's tales of polar bears drowning due to glaciers disappearing.

While scientists march to the drumbeat of grant money, at least trees don't lie. Their growth rings show what's happened no matter which philosophy is in power. Tree rings show a mini ice age in Europe about the time Stradivarius crafted his violins. Chilled Alpine Spruce gave him tighter wood so the instruments sang with a new purity. But England had to give up the wines that the Romans cultivated while our globe cooled, switching from grapes to colder weather grains and learning to take comfort with beer, whisky and ales.

Yet many centuries earlier, during a global warming, Greenland was green. And so it stayed and was settled by Vikings for generations until global cooling came along. Leif Ericsson even made it to Newfoundland. His shallow draft boats, perfect for sailing and rowing up rivers to conquer villages, wouldn't have stood a chance against a baby iceberg.

Those sustained temperature swings, all before the evil economic benefits of oil consumption, suggest there are factors at work besides humans.

Gary Sutton is co-founder of Teledesic and has been CEO of several other companies, including Knight Protective Industries and @Backup.

Mach2 5 years, 2 months ago

ibid.

Today, as I peck out these words, the weather channel is broadcasting views of a freakish and early snow falling on Dallas. The Iowa state extension service reports that the record corn crop expected this year will have unusually large kernels, thanks to "relatively cool August and September temperatures." And on Jan. 16, 2007, NPR went politically incorrect, briefly, by reporting that "An unusually harsh winter frost, the worst in 20 years, killed much of the California citrus, avocados and flower crops."

To be fair, those reports are short-term swings. But the longer term changes are no more compelling, unless you include the ice ages, and then, perhaps, the panic attempts of the 1970s were right. Is it possible that if we put more CO2 in the air, we'd forestall the next ice age?

I can ask "outrageous" questions like that because I'm not dependent upon government money for my livelihood. From the witch doctors of old to the elected officials today, scaring the bejesus out of the populace maintains their status.

Sadly, the public just learned that our scientific community hid data and censored critics. Maybe the feds should drop this crusade and focus on our health care crisis. They should, of course, ignore the life insurance statistics that show every class of American and both genders are living longer than ever. That's another inconvenient fact.

Gary Sutton is co-founder of Teledesic and has been CEO of several other companies, including Knight Protective Industries and @Backup.

Mach2 5 years, 2 months ago

note: I should have put "…not only is it extremely relevant and informative it also shows the humor of the situation.", in quotation marks, because they are the words from a friend, American, taxpayer, and citizen -- I copied it from his e-mail to me, and quoted him without his permission or knowledge.

The rest of the three posts, I properly attributed to Mr Gary Sutton, just in case he is out in the audience.

So, thus far, I have said nothing -- only thought the same and agreed with...

Mach2 5 years, 2 months ago

More stuff from my e-mail InBox (not my words, so don't criticize me for it, I'm just the messenger)... Written by someone else;

{Just weeks before thousands of delegates, advocates and journalists descended on Copenhagen for a summit to mark international solidarity in combating global warming, an unnamed whistleblower quietly unloaded the largest bomb from the climate change skeptics' arsenal.

A "hacker" published on the Web thousands of private e-mails and documents of some of the biggest players in the global warming debate. These messages showcased prominent global warming scientists bragging about "tricks" used to hide recent declines in global temperatures; the purposeful deletion of correspondence to avoid any kind of oversight; and the collusion among global warming scientists to keep opposing skeptics silent.

In one full swoop, the Climategate whistleblower had uncovered the hidden truths behind global warming alarmism: deleted e-mails, hidden declines, inaccurate data, destroyed research and the redefinition of peer-reviews for their own uses. Phil Jones has "temporarily stepped down" from his position at the CRU, and the United Nations has announced it will be investigating the validity of its own climate data. The story of Climategate exposes what goes on behind the scenes while trillions of dollars are on the line for policy decisions based on the findings of these scientists.

This all sounds like a Woodward-and-Bernstein-sized news story, but the reaction of the mainstream media suggested the whole thing came nowhere near priority news status. Most of the world's media simply ignored the news about the decades-old organized corruption and scientific crime reaching from the University of East Anglia all the way to the United Nations.

After acknowledging the validity of the explosive e-mails, the New York Times balked and said they would not be publishing any of the documents because they "appear to be acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye." Skeptics scoffed at this empty oath coming from the same paper that had previously published the highly classified top-secret Pentagon Papers less than 40 years ago and has since widely published information related to the intelligence community's monitoring of terrorists and specific strategies for how the U.S. protects its troops in the field.

The story was largely ignored for weeks on television and resonated only with Internet surfers getting news from U.K. sources and bloggers who buzzed as they worked through the pages of data and e-mails. The budding scandal was completely invisible to those not tuning into Fox News—NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC and CNN had reported nothing on the story weeks after the whistle had been blown.} [excerpt from an e-mail]

Mach2 5 years, 2 months ago

Looks like we can close out this page; Fact-based climate debate

The debate is over. Last man standing.

Mach2 5 years, 2 months ago

Just noting the "Breaking News" at the top of this page, tonight; Weather-related cancellations this week updated 6 hours, 4 minutes ago Weather-related youth sports cancellations posted 23 hours, 3 minutes ago Wind chill readings below zero; some area roads snowpacked updated 18 hours, 3 minutes ago

Just for the record... BRRrrrrrrrrr

Mach2 5 years, 2 months ago

I would expect that if CO2 causes global warming then the more CO2 we have would warm things up a bit. I'm looking for an explanation and found CO2 lags behind the warming (that may or may not be taking place). Ref: http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-does-CO2-lagging-temperature-mean.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

"Carbon dioxide did not cause the end of the last ice age, a new study in Science suggests, contrary to past inferences from ice core records." http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/uosc-cdd092507.php

If CO2 caused the warming, one would expect surface temperatures to increase before deep-sea temperatures, since the heat slowly would spread from top to bottom. Instead, carbon-dating showed that the water used by the bottom-dwelling organisms began warming about 1,300 years before the water used by surface-dwelling ones, suggesting that the warming spread bottom-up instead.

“The climate dynamic is much more complex than simply saying that CO2 rises and the temperature warms,” Stott said. The complexities “have to be understood in order to appreciate how the climate system has changed in the past and how it will change in the future.”

Mach2 5 years, 2 months ago

What happened to the great "global warming" debate? Or, is it "climate change"? Maybe, it is "the coming ice age"? I am so confused...

Mach2 5 years, 2 months ago

It appears that this whole "global warming" scheme was just a political football to gain funding for voodoo science projects. All the defenders have fled the stadium.

Himalayan glaciers are melting? Looks like the whole "climate change" thing has melted. Nobody even cares to defend it anymore.

But, that's just my humble opinion.

Mach2 5 years, 1 month ago

The UN Climate Change study, used a grad student's paper on the Himalayan glacier melt? This keeps getting curiouser and curiouser...

Anybody want to explain that to me?

Mach2 5 years, 1 month ago

John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, in an hour-long television documentary titled "Global Warming: The Other Side," presents evidence that our National Climatic Data Center has been manipulating weather data just as the now disgraced and under investigation British University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit. The NCDC is a division of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Its manipulated climate data is used by the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, which is a division of the National Aeronautical and Space Administration. John Coleman's blockbuster five-part series...

The Coleman documentary presents research by computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo. During the 1960s and into the 1980s, the number of stations used for calculating global surface temperatures was about 6,000. By 1990, the number of stations dropped rapidly to about 1,500. Most of the stations lost were in the colder regions of the Earth. Not adjusting for their lost made temperatures appear to be higher than was in fact the case. According to Science & Environmental Policy Project, Russia reported that CRU was ignoring data from colder regions of Russia, even though these stations were still reporting data. That means data loss was not simply the result of station closings but deliberate decisions by CRU to ignore them in order to hype their global warming claims. D'Aleo and Smith report that our NCDC engaged in similar deceptive activity where they have dropped stations, particularly in colder climates, higher elevations or closer to the polar regions. Temperatures are now simply projected for these colder stations from other stations, usually in warmer climates. Wednesday, February 03, 2010 Global Warming Update by Walter E. Williams http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2010/02/03/global_warming_update

Mach2 5 years, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Mach2 5 years, 1 month ago

John Coleman comments on Global Warming; Part 1/4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qrfiLXM8qY Part 2/4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-1WCczk8CU Part 3/4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kZfNk_JeGE&feature=related Part 4/4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FYmXpZqWos&feature=related

These links refer to the previous post on Walter E. Williams article; "Global Warming Update"

Mach2 5 years, 1 month ago

My apology for my 2:14 post, I forgot that I can only post the links to the video that I was referencing, not the embed code for the video. My error. Once, I realized my error, I flagged it for staff deletion and it can be completely removed, now. I post to other sites where that is permitted, but it was my error and I won't do that again. Sorry.

The valid links are posted above; John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, in an hour-long television documentary titled “Global Warming: The Other Side”

Mach2 5 years, 1 month ago

10 mins to Expose Global Warming Scam http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uP1Q-0fdkWI&feature=related

Let me understand something; The last ice age was ended by global warming? And, who started that one?

Mach2 5 years, 1 month ago

Sorry, was 10 minutes, too long?

Climate Change Scam Global Warming Hoax (2:50) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FP2UXvZvdjc&feature=related

Mach2 5 years, 1 month ago

Where is Al? I need an explanation for the blizzards... My Mom lives in DC and can't go ANYWHERE! Oh, did you see the NOAA press conference, yesterday... Obama administration was rolling out their Global Warming Office (police state, data collection and education dept.)... The plan is to divide the country into six (6) regions, so they can collect, fabricate and collate their data... AND GET IT RIGHT this time around!!!! Oh, you didn't see the press conference? Because it was changed into a "conference call"!!! It was too COLD, for a GLOBAL WARMING conference, because of the SNOW... It's a BLIZZARD people!!! And, these folks want to run our health care? Seems that one-quarter of the snow plows in DC are DOWN FOR MAINTENANCE... Which is a good thing. Less politik'n going on, the less broke we are.

Mach2 5 years, 1 month ago

Amber Alert for Al Gore... check all snow drifts.

The snow in DC is not going to stop until Al Gore yells "UNCLE"!

Mach2 5 years, 1 month ago

Commentary Climate Change Of Pace Michael Fumento, 02.17.10, 03:00 PM EST If medieval warming wasn't manmade, then the recent warming may not be either.

There have been a lot of well-kept secrets among the global warmists--which is primarily why the so-called "Climategate" stolen e-mails proved such a scandal. They showed that, in addition to squelching dissenters, the warmists were admitting things to each other that they were denying to the public. They felt, as a Jack Nicholson character put it, "You can't handle the truth!"

But now the truth is coming out. One fact is that there has been no statistically significant warming for quite awhile. The other is that temperatures in the Middle Ages, at the very least in the northern hemisphere, were considerably warmer than they are now.

Conceding both these points in a BBC interview was Professor Phil Jones. He was director of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, where the hacked Internet server released thousands of e-mails and other documents. Jones has temporarily stepped down pending an investigation.

...Jones, however, told the BBC there's been no “statistically significant” warming since 1995. That's something highly educated, highly esteemed skeptics like MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen and former NASA senior climatologist Roy Spencer have been pointing out for awhile....

http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/17/climate-change-skeptic-global-warming-opinions-contributors-michael-fumento.html?boxes=Homepagechannels

Mach2 5 years, 1 month ago

I wonder when these pseudo-scientists will give up on this "global warming" myth? Just like; "It's the economy, stupid!"... "It's the Sun, stupid!" There has always been a relationship between sun spot activity and changes in the climate. May not be the only factor, and we may not be able to explain the cause-effect, yet... But, man pales to insignificance when compared to volcanic activity and the depths of the ocean.

I do believe the "Green Movement" has red roots. Commies are commies, and they keep on trying to exert their control over people. God knows best, so let him run the weather.

Mach2 5 years, 1 month ago

Climategate 2.0 - The NASA Files: It’s The Data, Not The Globe, That’s Cooked (Part 1) - 11min http://www.pjtv.com/v/3102;jsessionid=abcnQl1Va6OEjeep5IZBs

Climategate 2.0 - The NASA Files: Don’t Bet The Economy On Weird Science (Part 2) - 14min http://www.pjtv.com/video/Specials/Climategate_20_-The_NASA_Files%3A__Don’t_Bet_The_Economy_On_Weird_Science%28Part_2%29/3103/

Climategate’s Frost/Nixon Moment: Steven Mosher Follows The FOIA - 11min http://www.pjtv.com/video/Specials/Climategate’s_Frost%7CNixon_Moment%3A_Steven_Mosher_Follows_The_FOIA/3100/

Three good videos on the smoking guns of fabricated climate science

Mach2 5 years, 1 month ago

Amazing, bad weather in the North Eastern United States, so the weather guessers are calling it a "Snowacane" (i.e. like a hurricane)... So, I guess RFK Jr. can claim it's caused by global warming, like he did with Katrina? The storm is actually a classic "nor'eater"... There is a good photo of one; "Satellite image of the intense nor'easter responsible for the North American blizzard of 2006. Note the hurricane-like eye at the center." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nor'easter

Other links to: Notable nor'easters -- The Great Blizzard of 1888 The Ash Wednesday Storm of 1962 The Groundhog Day gale of 1976 The Northeastern United States blizzard of 1978 The Late November 1984 Nor'easter The 1991 Perfect Storm (the "Perfect Storm," combined Nor'easter/hurricane) The Storm of the Century (1993) The Christmas 1994 Nor'easter The North American blizzard of 1996 The April Fools' Day blizzard of 1997 The December 2000 Northeast United States snowstorm The North American blizzard of 2003 The December 2003 New England snowstorm The Atlantic Canada blizzard of February 2004 ("White Juan") The North American blizzard of 2005 The North American blizzard of 2006 The Late November 2006 Nor'easter The February 2007 North America Winter Storm The April 2007 Nor'easter The December 2009 Nor'easter

So, what else is new in the world? I remember, as a kid, trying to figure out cyclonic flows in New York State, which snowed us in at times, from nor'easters in New England that fed moisture to Alberta Clippers. Nobody ever suggested that we mortals were causing climate change with our CO2 emissions back in the 1940-50s...

Mach2 5 years ago

What happened to all the "global warming" proponents?

Mach2 5 years ago

I really don't understand. Where did all those loud mouthed, anthro-whatever global warming characters go? If you read this site from top to bottom, they were all confident on which they spoke. Now? Not so much.

I really like this video; CLIMATEGATE: The Global Warming Cover Up Spreads to NASA http://www.pjtv.com/v/3230;jsessionid=abc6W1bO57H2Th1QRwuDs

OK, ok... Maybe it's because I'm hot for Danika Quinn, but that doesn't change the subject. This video is a fairly good summation of all the "false premises" that have been chasing themselves around the debate, all along. It's the sun, stupid!

Mach2 4 years, 12 months ago

I guess I arrived at the party too late. I wish I could have questioned the motivation of all the pseudo scientists, who obviously have hidden agendas. Fifty years ago it was hot in the summer and cold in the winter. Now, it's still hot in the summer and cold in the winter. So?

Looks like if there is any variance, from year to year, it isn't man made. With the Maunder Minimum as a historical fact (long before we had SUVs), and a close correlation to the "Little Ice Age"... Where are the proponents of the man-made global warming activists? Sounds like a religious cult and a political movement, all wrapped up with their little ideology.

It's all about control. Just another scam on the American people.

Mach2 4 years, 11 months ago

Now, we have some nut job claiming that the W. VA Coal Mine disaster, was caused by global warming?

Mach2 4 years, 11 months ago

People are blaming the volcanic eruption in Iceland on "global warming". One reporter remarked, on the air, that she never knew that Iceland was warm enough to have volcanoes. Anybody checked the CO2 output of volcanoes, lately?

Mach2 4 years, 11 months ago

WELCOME TO A SANE LOOK AT CLIMATE SCIENCE

"Global warming" could be the most costly scare story in the history of man. Please use the search facility at the top left of the site to find specific articles among over 1000 on the site. Some suggested key topics: clouds, biofuels, hurricanes, windpower, global cooling, emissions, arctic, antarctic, zero carbon, stars, aussies, china, sun, Gore, schools, IPCC, NIPCC, climate models, hockey stick, trust in science. http://climatescience.blogspot.com/2009/01/1859-solar-superstorm-it-could-happen.html

1859 SOLAR SUPERSTORM - IT COULD HAPPEN AGAIN Here is an interesting piece of scientific history. The sun's climate affects us in many ways.

Mike Ford 4 years, 11 months ago

if any of you clowns are interested, there are Gwetchin and Inupiat Indigenous peoples who have had their home and hunting areas on the ice where they've lived for 10, 000 years melt away because of your denial and ignorance. Keep it up selfish Americans don't care about anyone else anyway, right?. These people have come to Lawrence a couple of times over the last three years and yet dumb people rage. awesome.

Mach2 4 years, 11 months ago

Welcome stranger; Denial? Ignorance?

Tell me about the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). Tell me about how Al Gore sells carbon credits and makes millions on a false premise. Tell me about the Apollo Alliance. Tell me about the Joyce Foundation.

Brother, you have been scammed. Don't feel bad, though. So, has the rest of the world; To the tune of $10 Trillion. It's all about control.

Mach2 4 years, 10 months ago

OK, all you global warming theorists out there... Since your failed "hockey stick" scam didn't work, why not try this site?

http://www.wolframalpha.com/screencast/introducingwolframalpha.html

Just an idea. Of course we will be watching for GiGo (i.e.; Garbage in, Garbage out), but at least we "deniers" will be able to replicate what you do, and at the same time verify the results.

Does this sound like a fair and open-minded discussion?

Mach2 4 years, 9 months ago

I heard on Star Date, today, that Mars is losing it's atmosphere due to the solar wind. Interestingly, the loss is not uniform as the solar wind has "pulses" as waves catch up with other waves, it could strip three times as much as when the solar winds are in their doldrums.

I wonder if more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, might even be a good thing. More CO2, means more plants grow and produce oxygen...

Just a thought.

Mach2 4 years, 9 months ago

Where are all the global warming alarmists?

Blog entries

Commenting has been disabled for this item.