Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Associate research director at NASA discusses satellites documenting climate change at Dole Institute of Politics

Based on data, climate change is real, NASA official Jack Kaye says. But part of the difficulty is discerning how much of the change is caused by nature and how much from humans.

February 9, 2011

Advertisement

In all corners of the world, scientists are gathering data to study the effects that a warming climate has on the earth. But it’s the view from 13 satellites that circle far above the planet that holds some of the most promising potential in predicting those changes.

That was the message that Jack Kaye, associate director for research in NASA’s earth science division, gave to a group of students and faculty at the Dole Institute of Politics Wednesday afternoon. Kaye’s talk was part of a visit to Kansas University.

“One thing about satellites, it gives you access to remote and hostile areas,” Kaye said. “You want to know what is going on over the ocean, over the tropics, over deserts, over a volcano? Without satellites there is no way you are going to do that.”

For an hour, Kaye talked about the satellites that orbit the earth gathering information on the atmosphere, biosphere, seas, ice sheets and clouds. Satellites provide a more comprehensive and continental look at climate change, Kaye said.

Through satellites, scientists have gathered data that shows the amount of sea ice has been significantly reduced, that it is not as thick as it used to be and that there is less old sea ice compared with new sea ice.

“I am a firm believer that climate change is real. It is happening. The physics are fundamentally sound and the data record is enough that we can see things happening,” Kaye told the crowd. “I do believe the planet is getting warmer. When the planet gets warmer, ice is going to melt and sea level will rise.”

While the earth’s most dramatic changes have been found in the polar regions, Kaye said there have been other observations as well.

“We can see changes in biology, we can see changes in the ocean, we can see changes in atmospheric conditions,” Kaye said but noted it can be difficult to discern long-term changes in the midst of frequent short-term variations.

Along with monitoring ice sheets, NASA has been studying how aerosols — which can come from sources as diverse as the soot of fossil fuels, dust from the desert or volcanic ash — affect clouds and precipitation. In two weeks, NASA will launch its next satellite, Glory, which will have a major focus on studying aerosols.

Through satellites NASA has been able to track where ground water levels are dropping, which areas of the earth have a drop in photosynthesis production and where rapid urbanization has occurred.

“We are changing the surface of the earth. And you can see that from a satellite. This is being repeated all over the world. Without satellites it is very hard to see that picture,” Kaye said.

Comments

lawrenceguy40 3 years, 9 months ago

Lies, damn lies and statistics! All to justify their spending of the hard-working taxpayer's money on their pet projects.

I have an ideal experiment to prove if global warming is real - send al gore and all the global warming liars to stand on some isolated atoll and if they drown we will believe they were right, if they don't drown the rest of us will not have had to live with their arrogant, whiny drivel. A win-win situation.

SirReal 3 years, 9 months ago

You're right none of it's real, let's dig up all the land we possibly can looking for oil instead of investing in any kind of new more renewable ecologically sound energy, who cares.

Chris Golledge 3 years, 9 months ago

Since you haven't provided any information or reasoning based on information, you are asking us to believe that there exists a multi-national conspiracy that has survived all the transitions of power and competition between scientists over the last, oh, 6 decades, based on your word.

Or, we could choose to believe that you have bought into the lies told by the largest, richest industry in the world, which would like to remain so, and would be put out of business if we actually get serious about reducing carbon emissions and preserving the world as we know it.

Which do you think is more likely?

overthemoon 3 years, 9 months ago

1998 was a spike year, since then temperatures have steadily risen to temperatures above the 1998 record.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html

Ken Lassman 3 years, 9 months ago

How 'bout ocean heat content, which continues to rise, and arctic sea ice coverage, which continues to drop--here are the latest for those: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/#more-6056

There are so many different angles to document the rising temperatures and deniers are going to have an increasingly hard time talking their way out of all of the different indicators.

overthemoon 3 years, 9 months ago

Yep... the 'but it was hotter in 1998' is standard issue denier 'reasoning'. Its been debunked from every possible angle and source, but they'll scream it till the water's up to their knees.

They have very few, if any, facts to back up their claims, but steadfastly hold to their preferred narrative. Thing is, taking the steps to reduce energy consumption, preserve ecosystems, and address food production imbalances would do no harm, even if the changing climate weren't an issue. It would be politically and economically prudent and effective, but those who refuse to let loose of their belief in lies will steadfastly stand in the way of progress for the whole dang planet.

Chris Golledge 3 years, 9 months ago

The other day you claimed there was a cooling trend over the last 15 years, and I showed that was incorrect. You appear to have shifted your strategy to cherry-picking the hottest year prior to 2010. I suggest you put a little more effort in yourself.

overthemoon 3 years, 9 months ago

If deniers 'put in the effort', they will find that they have been swindled and lied to by people who make lots of money obstructing proactive efforts to address the problems. They will find that they are wrong. So they huddle around the denier fires and ignore any rational debate.

preschool_teacher 3 years, 9 months ago

are u referring to the reporter or dr. kaye?

gudpoynt 3 years, 9 months ago

OK. I'm gonna just scroll down and declare champion Boneheads along the way. BloodBot is the current winner.

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

"But part of the difficulty is discerning how much of the change is caused by nature and how much from humans."

This statement appears below Kaye's photo, but is discussed nowhere in the article.

"We can see changes in biology, we can see changes in the ocean, we can see changes in atmospheric conditions,” Kaye said but noted it can be difficult to discern long-term changes in the midst of frequent short-term variations."

That's the point, isn't it? The Earth has experienced warming and cooling cycles many times, as has been ably demonstrated by legitimate scientists after the original hysteria spawned by Gore and his phony scientist pals wore off.

Man-made "global warming" (now referred to as "climate change" after the Glowarmers' initial snake-oil theories were debunked) remains the greatest worldwide hoax of the 20th century. During the 21st it will gradually be rejected by most of the thinking populace. By the time that occurs, the only ones left who will still profess to believe in it will be the ones who still want to inflict irreparable damage on our way of life, who were the ones who came up with it in the first place.

Bob_Keeshan 3 years, 9 months ago

A bold prediction. It has no basis in fact, but it is a bold prediction.

A note - you may not be aware that as part of the Al Gore hysteria it was frequently mentioned that the earth has experienced warming and colling cycles many times. In fact, it is documented multiple times in Mr. Gore's film by Mr. Gore that the earth has experienced warming and colling cycles many times.

overthemoon 3 years, 9 months ago

Al Gore did not 'invent' global warming, climate change or what ever you want to call it. The study, research and concern has been around since the 50's.

I suppose you never saw 'Inconvenient Truth' because you formed your opinions without benefit of any real evidence and decided it was lies without even knowing what the movie was about. Its a well done documentary, worth your time if you have the mental discipline to watch it without letting your predisposition to hating it prevent you from understanding it.

gudpoynt 3 years, 9 months ago

oooh... close, cato. But BloodBot still reigns. You used quotes from the article, so that counts against you.

Ken Lassman 3 years, 9 months ago

It's not snake oil, Cato, it's the whole area of climatological modeling called forcing. It's easy to come up with any hare-brained theory you want if you just use descriptive statistics to explain the data, as so many deniers are prone to do. In other words, I can come up with a descriptive statistic that accurately describes the sun crossing our sky during the day and not need the theory of gravity that posits that the earth is rotating around the sun, not the other way around. The problem is, that this statistical approach is worthless as far as predicting anything--without a model of the solar system that is informed by what we know about gravity, the statistical description in 6 months will be completely inaccurate as far as describing that path the sun takes across the sky.

That's what makes the climatological modeling so compelling: they have increasing power to both hindcast and forecast climatological trends, and are increasingly refined using data like Kaye is collecting. Welcome to the 21st century, in which the thinking populace will accept the increasingly compelling data and modeling that will hopefully convince folks to take measures to avoid the worst of the consequences of climate change as we realize that we actually can make a difference. For more on attribution, here's a useful discussion: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/05/on-attribution/

Mean_Green 3 years, 9 months ago

Be sure to shovel the "global warming" off your sidewalks so you don't get a ticket.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 9 months ago

Or you can just wait till next week when temperatures will be in the fifties all week.

And in case you hadn't noticed, it's still February.

Chris Golledge 3 years, 9 months ago

Lol, you read,

"The Sun will be approaching the peak of its 11-year cycle..."

and fail to notice that it's at the bottom now. So, yeah, when you are at or just past the bottom, you are 'approaching' the peak. Did you even bother to look at the recent history of solar irradiance?

overthemoon 3 years, 9 months ago

Mr. Kaye, if you happen to look at this forum, I hope you will not be too disheartened by our local crop of deniers. I'm sure you find them everywhere you go. I appreciate the efforts of you and you many reality based colleagues to communicate the importance of understanding and addressing the physical, political, social and economic affects that we are leaving our children to cope with. The hoopla over deficits and debt will seem a paltry and inconsequential game in comparison.

Chris Golledge 3 years, 9 months ago

Dr Kaye talked about international cooperation on the satellite missions, and also about how there is much uncertainty about whether the directives that they get from the White House in any way agree with the directives that they get from congress, and whether funding matches mission goals. I thought of a question too late to ask along the lines of, "Do you get the impression that your counterparts in other countries have as much trouble with their governments in these areas as you do?"

usnsnp 3 years, 9 months ago

I am not a climate scientist, but I have looked at both sides as best as I can. One of the things that I find is most of the scientist that say there is no climate change are backed by energy companies especially hydrocarbon companies. My attitude is,what if theis nay sayers are wrong, I remember when there were scientist that said smog was not created by burning hydrocarbons for fuel and that smog was not bad for your health, they were wrong. What if they are wrong now, what happens in another 20. 30. 40 years, it may be too late, what kind of world will we leave for our children or grand children.

overthemoon 3 years, 9 months ago

Excellent points. Doing something causes no harm. (except to the oil companies...who by the way are repositioning in greener tech) However, doing nothing has the potential of devastation of life as we know it. If the odds are 50/50, I go with doing something...nearly all REPUTABLE science suggest the odds are much higher and doing nothing is stupidity on the highest order.

overthemoon 3 years, 9 months ago

Excellent points. Doing something causes no harm. (except to the oil companies...who by the way are repositioning in greener tech) However, doing nothing has the potential of devastation of life as we know it. If the odds are 50/50, I go with doing something...nearly all REPUTABLE science suggest the odds are much higher and doing nothing is stupidity on the highest order.

Alison Carter 3 years, 9 months ago

Very thorough coverage of a most interesting lecture. Good Job!

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

It's entertaining to see that my comment drew out at least a few Glowarmer lemmings. I wonder whether any of them have studied the CIA's "global cooling" files from 1974, which speak openly of "consensus among leading scientists" at that time that the world was cooling at an alarming rate.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 9 months ago

There was some limited amount of theorizing at the time, but there was nothing approaching a "consensus."

This red herring has been debunked thoroughly, but those whose interest in this topic is completely ideological never tire of dragging up their limited set of tiresome talking points, no matter how illegitimate they may be.

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

Not so, Bozo. The discovery of the CIA's files debunked the debunkers. I still remember reading the alarming New York Times stories in 1975 reporting that scientists were predicting massive global freezing. Since the Times stories weren't the only ones at the time, this has presented an inconvenient problem for Glowarmers - the revisionists among whom have conveniently claimed lack of scientific "consensus" at the time, only to be debunked by the discovery of the CIA's files in which a clear scientific consensus on "global cooling" is the linchpin of its report.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 9 months ago

But even if what you are contending were right, which it isn't, it's wholly irrelevant to whether or not anthropogenic global warming is happening. And the vast preponderance of evidence, which you choose to deny, says that it is.

And here's cg22165's link to some actual facts, in case you want to do something wholly out of character and educate yourself.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

Bozo, as I've posed below to overthemoon, have you ever heard of the University of East Anglia? Climategate? Of course you have. The fact that you choose to believe in anything as thoroughly discredited as the phony science behind "man-made global warming" demonstrates once more that all you really want is to damage American industry and prosperity - which is, of course, entirely consistent with all of your posts on this forum.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 9 months ago

Of course, I have. The wackosphere went particularly wacky over what turned out to be much ado about very little.

Once it was actually investigated, it was found that there was nothing wrong with science involved. They were criticized for not being as transparent about their methods as they should, and for venting their frustrations with know-nothings such as yourself in their communications with each other.

But as far as "climategate" goes, there is just no there, there.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

Bozo, Climategate was the greatest embarrassment yet to Glowarmers. The fact that you can dismiss the e-mails from the principals involved, in which they admit having doctored the numbers and express their concerns about what would happen if they were to get caught, says a lot about your system of values.

Chris Golledge 3 years, 9 months ago

Sigh, this is like playing Whack-a-Mole.

For anyone interested, here is a summary of what was really going on in research circles.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

overthemoon 3 years, 9 months ago

From that article:

"The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming."

But this won't stop the deniers, who have their five or six bits of cherry picked info that they won't let go of no matter how thoroughly they have been debunked.

notaubermime 3 years, 9 months ago

"Sigh, this is like playing Whack-a-Mole."

You say this as if you expected it to be otherwise. If you are posting to convince these people that they are wrong, you are wasting your time. Their words are not those of indecision, but those of certainty. There is nothing you can say to take that certainty away from them.

There are other, better reasons to present the information you have been linking to.

Chris Golledge 3 years, 9 months ago

Do I expect to change the minds of Cato and Devo, et al? No

The best I can hope for is that one or two others are not mislead by their misinterpretation of the information that is available.

drake 3 years, 9 months ago

If global warming could raise the average temperature by 2 degrees it would have only been -9 this morning!

Chris Golledge 3 years, 9 months ago

Three more words:
'you' 'are' 'stupid'

Have you read the article? Because I have, and in it, Mann explains to the reader exactly what he has done in producing the graph. Why is it that you interpret explaining it to the reader as some sort of nefarious 'trick'?

devobrun 3 years, 9 months ago

The "trick", c,g is that the hockey stick is based entirely upon proxy data. Tree rings, ice cores, mud deposits, coral growth.

Proxy data is used when the actual data cannot be measured. It is useful in the same way as statistical correlation in order to see if further study should be done. That is, correlation and inferred data are not science. They suggest areas where science might be done.

Science being the actual measuring of the things that are indicated by proxy, or suggested by correlation. Tree rings are tree rings.....not temperature. Mud deposits on fjord bottoms are just that. And only that.

Narratives about the tree rings, coral polyp size or any other proxy is not the thing itself.

Oh wait, cg is a modern scientist. Inference is reality. Speculation is science. Computer model runs are experiments.

And political power shifts to the experts.

Jack Kaye has a problem. He works for NASA and his funding is in jeopardy. People are asking why NASA still exists even though we will have no manned launch capability within 6 months. Actually, it looks like we have no manned launch capability right now. I was due to attend the 2nd-to-last STS mission on November 1 last year. It still hasn't launched.

And Prasad has a problem, too. As head of Cresis, he needs to maintain funding as well. Time to raise awareness. Time to hit the campaign trail. Sigh.

Is climate changing? Of course. That's easy. Why should it not change and vary over the decades and centuries and longer? Is it a major threat to life on the planet? Life is ubiquitous, varied, and amazingly capable of surviving. Relax.
You'll be fine. Stop wringing your hands and start drilling for natural gas and oil sands. Time we all get on with our lives, living in the cleanest and most comfortable period in the history of humans.

Ken Lassman 3 years, 9 months ago

Interesting premise, devo, I guess that the entire fields of astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology can be thrown out, since we cannot directly measure anything directly, having only feeble fractions of the electromagnetic field to infer things outside of our atmosphere. And high energy physics is fraught with inference, as is pretty much all of science these days, despite leaps in our ability to create new materials, processes and predictions based on those inferences.

And you're right about the planet; it will survive and probably even be relieved when our fragile human constructs collapse because of the changes we induce. I thought it was the environmentalists who were the ones who didn't care about the fate of humans on this planet?

Ken Lassman 3 years, 9 months ago

Interesting premise, devo, I guess that the entire fields of astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology can be thrown out, since we cannot directly measure anything directly, having only feeble fractions of the electromagnetic field to infer things outside of our atmosphere. And high energy physics is fraught with inference, as is pretty much all of science these days, despite leaps in our ability to create new materials, processes and predictions based on those inferences.

And you're right about the planet; it will survive and probably even be relieved when our fragile human constructs collapse because of the changes we induce. I thought it was the environmentalists who were the ones who didn't care about the fate of humans on this planet?

overthemoon 3 years, 9 months ago

Ok. For all those that adamantly hold to the belief that Climate Change is a hoax, lie, or some other misleading attempt to steal your lawn furniture, here's a site for you. If you feel so strongly about your position, you owe it to your self to find your favorite arguments and see the related research. Its a categorized list that is easy to navigate:

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

If you haven't done your homework, you shouldn't be making broad, unsupported statements based on outdated and debunked information.

jafs 3 years, 9 months ago

Nice link.

Everybody who wants to make claims about the topic should look at it first, if we want to have some informed discussion.

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

Cg22165, overthemoon, starlight and notaubermime, it doesn't do any good to tell you about the CIA's files, does it? You're all people of absolute certainty in your chosen religion of Man-Made Global Warming. If you're presented with anything from a skeptic, it's "cherry-picked." As I first pointed out, Kaye apparently acknowledged in his presentation that it's unclear how much of the warming he perceives is caused by human activity. The fact that the reporter chose not even to mention that part of his presentation in the body of her story is exactly what I'm talking about - it's a religion, pure and simple, and if you disagree with it you're not part of the club. In the meantime, there are people of your ilk advocating ridiculous "solutions," from banning incandescent light bulbs to "carbon credits" that will make Al Gore and his cronies untold millions through companies they've set up, all ready to put their snouts shamelessly in the public trough in order to profit from a hoax that they've cleverly exploited. In the meantime, no matter what weather patterns we have, it's all the result of "Global Warming" - and common sense goes out the window. P.T Barnum would have loved all of you.

overthemoon 3 years, 9 months ago

CIA files have proven many times to be not particularly reliable resource material, for one. This is no religion...did you get that from Glen Beck? Rush? The anecdotal information deniers provide is called 'cherry picked' because it is. One isolated bit of information out of context. Sorry,

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

Overthemoon, the CIA was concerned enough about the virtually complete destruction of the Russian wheat crop in the early '70s that it consulted many scientists and found that the strong consensus among them was that we were facing massive global cooling. The CIA documents were contemporaneously generated, not laughably ginned up 35 years later by Glowarmers using cherry-picked information to concoct biased, pre-determined results. There are so many holes in "man-made global warming" that the only way anyone can believe in it is to stretch unproven hypotheses driven by self-serving information fed into computers controlled by Glowarmer lemmings posing as "scientists." Ever heard of the University of East Anglia? How about Climategate? You have, I'm sure, but you choose to pretend that they don't exist. Keep your head in the sand - or instead, perhaps over the moon - it appears to suit you well.

overthemoon 3 years, 9 months ago

"many" scientists....how many? Have you READ the CIA report? The conclusion in the report was that, in 1974, climate science was not able to predict future climate beyond 1-5 years. And that they needed to develop more accurate long range methods of prediction. More recent reviews of the science communities research indicate that 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.

East Anglia email thing has also been proven, in court, to be a humbug: "Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy (from Union of Concerned Scientists, and supported by FactCheck and numerous other sources. British courts also found the East Anglia thing to be of no consequence)

"The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate"

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

Overthemoon, if you wish to retain even a shred of credibility, please don't cite anything from the "Union of Concerned Scientists," a strictly politically-driven group that's long ago been shown to be just that. The University of East Anglia scandal, dubbed "Climategate," is the most profound embarrassment yet for Glowarmers. It did, however, do a great service for our collective common sense in that it educated the public about how the dire computer-modeled predictions that had been foisted upon us were doctored, starting with the data that was fed into the computers in the first place. As has long been said in the computer world, "Garbage in, garbage out." No matter how many more such scandals occur, however, the Glowarmers will continue to pontificate until it's become obvious that New York City isn't going to be destroyed by a tidal wave and this worldwide, politically-driven hoax becomes only a memory.

overthemoon 3 years, 9 months ago

As I noted, the particular quote was from UCS, but that it is one of many. (FYI, most of the info on UCS site is corroborated and cited to multiple outside sources, including 'contrarian' claims)

If you prefer: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

Ken Lassman 3 years, 9 months ago

Alas, overthemoon, Cato the elder does not aspire to the oratorical standards of the real Cato the Elder. He utilizes flawed ad hominem attacks when he should address the content of your comments but can't.: instead of countering the conclusions with logic, he disparagingly labels anyone a Glowarmer who looks at the data and concludes, along with virtually all climatologists that global temps are rising and human activity is a major factor in it. He ignores the conclusion of at least 5 investigation of the East Anglia databases and instead focuses on the journalistic and political hay made by the right wing protestations over the leak. Finally, he holds up the straw dog of a tidal wave hitting New York City and says it will never happen. Who said it would, except perhaps a disaster movie?

The real Cato the Elder must be spinning in his grave.

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

Careful, DougCounty. You would not have liked Cato the Elder any more than you like me. He is best known for his statement "Carthago delenda est," meaning "Carthage must be destroyed," which undoubtedly would have caused you to label him a "neocon" had you been wearing a toga in the second century B.C.

By the way, while Cato gave a number of speeches, he wasn't known primarily for his oratorical skills, which were certainly not those of a caliber possessed later by Cicero, for example. He was much better known as a soldier, statesman, moralist and engineer - which are probably additional reasons that you wouldn't have liked him.

Ken Lassman 3 years, 9 months ago

Actually, those vocations imply disclipline, resolve, truth, moral values and logic. I suggest that your dismissive labeling, straw dog tactics and ad hominem attacks would have been beneath a man of such stature. I maintain that if you choose such a forum name that you live up to it, not besmirch it.

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

Again, DougCounty, you seem to hold a higher view of Cato than you would if you actually knew anything about him. I do, however, agree that Cato practiced discipline, resolve, truth, moral values and logic, as do I. Unfortunately, because you're a leftist and disagree with me on politics, you can't see that.

Ken Lassman 3 years, 9 months ago

I stand corrected; I knew him only from his agricultural writings. Digging a bit deeper, it seems that he was a cruel slave owner, a misogynist who treated his wife and women in general as his slaves, was threatened by the success and prosperity of others, saw the Athenian ideals of democracy as corruption and weakness. Thanks for clarifying the kind of character your nom de plume was.

notaubermime 3 years, 9 months ago

Ignoring such shallow rhetorical devices as 'science I don't agree with is a religion,' awkward attempts at twisting another poster's words and generally derogatory language:

Those files are all based around a well-debunked myth that scientific consensus favored global cooling (see link for research debunking that myth).

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/

The CIA did no primary research, did not employ climatologists, and the files are close to 40 years old now. I cannot, by any stretch of reasoning see what is to be so convincing about some debunked, 40-year-old files from a non-scientific government agency.

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

Notaubermime, shouldn't it be "nonanubermime?" Just curious.

In the meantime, since you obviously didn't read what I posted earlier, I'll post it again: The CIA was concerned enough about the virtually complete destruction of the Russian wheat crop in the early '70s that it consulted many scientists and found that the strong consensus among them was that we were facing massive global cooling. The CIA documents were contemporaneously generated, not laughably ginned up 35 years later by Glowarmers using cherry-picked information to concoct biased, pre-determined results.

The CIA, with no political axe to grind, simply reported what the strong consensus was at the time. So did the New York Times and other media outlets. Politically-driven people 35 years later with a need to bury yet another inconvenient truth for them to deal with have no credibility vis-a-vis a contemporaneously reported finding from a government agency that was simply doing its its job.

overthemoon 3 years, 9 months ago

And did you READ the report?? I did, because when something is cited that I am not familiar with I try to go to the primary source in order to have a clear idea of what it really is, not some second, third or fourth source that has used a sentence here or there to make a point.

First page. A disclaimer. This is a study and in no way is conclusive nor does it represent the position of the agency. Followed by reviews of university studies and the methodologies four distinct groups apply to their research. Analysis of potential agricultural and social issues should the studied trend, which was only 3-4 years old at the time, should continue. CONCLUSION...not possible to predict any weather beyond 5 years out due to lack of research and technical tools. (Remember, at this time, remote sensing was in its infancy so most temperature data was based on sampling on land. Landsat satellites would not develop ability to record infrared for another 10 years) So basically, at that time climate scientists were studying weather patterns, not broader, long range climatic implications)

Yes. There was a big hoopla over the cooling thing and the media ran with it. (kinda like 'death panels' and the president is a 'socialist' or he didn't were a tie for an interview) I remember the time. I was in high school and the whole thing scared the crap out of me....because there was NO reporting on conflicting evidence (sound familiar) there was a lot of chicken little reaction.

(Interesting side note, while searching for the not-so-important CIA internal study, I came across another CIA extensive official report to the State Dept. from the same time period analyzing the Soviet Union politically, economically, socially, militarily. There is NO mention of global cooling, warming or any weather phenomena as a factor in Russia, or anywhere else.)

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

Overthemoon, glad that the CIA's work in the early '70s caused you enough concern that you read it in order to figure out a way to pretend that it's irrelevant. It certainly doesn't fit in with your Glowarming agenda.

In 35 years it will give me a great deal of pleasure to observe all the hysterical folks who will then be issuing dire predictions about massive anthropogenic global cooling falling all over themselves arguing that those now pushing "man-made global warming" didn't constitute a majority of the "scientists" who had opinions on the subject at that time.

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

Actually, overthemoon, you may not even be able to do that once Michelle Obama gets done telling us all what we can eat. Where we can eat will probably be next.

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

Notaubermime, just noticed that I meant to ask you why it isn't "notanubermime."

notaubermime 3 years, 9 months ago

It isn't "notanubermime" because that would not be as funny.

notaubermime 3 years, 9 months ago

The CIA file in question: http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

If you would, please find for me the text in this document which supports the following statement of yours: "that it consulted many scientists and found that the strong consensus among them was that we were facing massive global cooling."

After reading the document, there are plenty of statements made in it which actually state the opposite, that there are not many climatologists and that they "could not provide definitive causal explanations for their hypotheses." It very much emphasized that the science was still young and developing.

As for you claims of cherry-picking, your statement is little more than rhetoric. Provided in the link are the papers used so that anyone may add papers which were left out or re-define his categorization should they disagree with his analysis. If he did cherry-pick, it would be easy to demonstrate it, rather than just make empty accusations.

Mike Ford 3 years, 9 months ago

take the deniers and make them live in the North Pole with the Inupiat people whose lands and livelyhood are being destroyed by these willfully ignorant Americans. Then see how much the deniers deny.

Olympics 3 years, 9 months ago

The beauty of this is the same morons denying global warming are identical to the evolution deniers. Good times.

overthemoon 3 years, 9 months ago

And calling the President a 'Kenyan Socialist' and thinking that tax breaks and spending cuts will create jobs...

overthemoon 3 years, 9 months ago

Final question:

What bit of information, study, or actual physical phenomenon would it take to change a denier's position?

Or put another way, How many deniers does it take to change a light bulb? None. They refuse to accept that the old one doesn't work anymore.

jafs 3 years, 9 months ago

I think there is a certain group of people who will not be convinced by anything until it's too late to do anything about it.

The hope is that some who are skeptical will do enough research, and not fall for little sound bites of (dis)information disseminated by the hard core deniers.

The link that was posted up above would be a good place to start.

preschool_teacher 3 years, 9 months ago

This speaker sounds so intelligent & smart! He really knows what hes talking about. Great job Dr. Kaye

notorious_agenda 3 years, 9 months ago

"When the planet gets warmer, ice is going to melt and sea level will rise." a quote from the article.

From a recent study, the authors concluded that when ice melts sea level does not necessarily rise. In some cases it falls. Due to gravitational forces as well as the weight of water and ice pressing down on the Earth's crust. When the ice melts and runs off in some places the earth below it rises due to the lack of previous pressure. In some places sea level stays the same In some places sea level falls the earth is not a sphere. Water has it's own properties and is not exempt of the laws of gravity.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 9 months ago

In other words, global warming may even cause an increase in seismic activity, including earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis.

Ken Lassman 3 years, 9 months ago

Can you give us a citation or source, please? Of course this can be true except for the fact that the data does not support it:

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/impacts/slr.cfm

Massive shifts in mass that comes with its location on the planet could certainly contribute to earthquakes, I would think, though.

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

Notaubermime, I read what you submitted and note that after discussing crop failures due to sharp freezing, ice, and snow (to which I had previously referred), it states:

"In the early 1970s...the world's snow and ice cover had increased by 10 to 15 percent." It went on to say:

"In the Eastern Canadian area of the Arctic Greenland, below normal temperatures were recorded for 19 consecutive months. Nothing like this had happened in the last 100 years." And more:

"Scientists are confident that unless man is able to effectively modify the climate, the northern regions, such as Canada, the European part of the Soviet Union, and major areas in northern China, will again be covered with 100 to 200 feet of ice and snow. That this will occur within the next 2,500 years they are quite positive; that it may occur sooner is open to speculation."

Hardly the stuff of "global warming," wouldn't you say?

The file went on to state that we were nearing the end of relatively ideal conditions for agriculture and were returning to cooler conditions experienced two centuries earlier that would not be favorable for agriculture.

The conclusion states: "Leaders in climatology and economics are in agreement that a climatic change is taking place and that it has already caused major economic problems throughout the world." The conclusion goes on to state that food supplies were of great concern. Many of the crop failures earlier described had resulted from colder conditions than had been forecasted, especially ice and snow, and flooding.

Glowarmers, give up. In the early and mid-'70s the hue and cry was "global freezing." Now it's "man-made global warming." What it really is is ridiculous.

Ken Lassman 3 years, 9 months ago

It's fascinating how you come up with such a conclusion, when I am coming up with the exact opposite after reading over the old CIA document that you are citing. It seems that some scientists from Wisconsin started to put together what they knew about climate and history, or in the case of Reid Bryson, archaeology and the ice age, and put up a red flag. Knowing how intensely things were affected by the ice age, these folks said that preliminary evidence was pointing to a change in the climate, something that could devastate agriculture and cause massive starvation, unrest, and the like. They also bemoaned how little we know about the physical details of the net global energy balance, how there was very little synthesis of data that had been collected, and how important it was to start spending money to pull the pieces together.

Shortly after that, the 94th Congress gave money to establish the National Climate Services System and gave NOAA the job of studying climatological data and developing models. From the CIA document, a cursory look at the numbers that they used back then showed that they thought that 36% of the sun's energy was reflected back into space when it is now accepted as 32%, which no doubt came out of this initiative to understand the processes better. By 1980, they had already committed to studying more closely the role that CO2 played in global temps, as it was clear even then how critical the GHG were to homeostatic global temps.

So Cato, you see a wildly erratic bunch of scientists who almost flippantly reverse themselves in their predictions and ask for more and more money. After reviewing the history a bit, it seems clear to me that the potentially devastating consequences of climate change got the attention of the CIA, the House Committee on Science and Technology responded by making understanding and monitoring climate dynamics and change a priority, and the picture has been getting clearer and clearer as the models and data have poured in ever since.

Thanks for the background! It shows me that science was doing its job and doing it quite well indeed.

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

No, DougCounty, it shows quite clearly that a good number of the same "scientists" who were certain that "a climatic change was taking place" in the direction of a New Ice Age have now done a 180 in the direction of "man-made global warming." I remember quite distinctly reading apocalyptic predictions about this in the New York Times and other publications in the mid-'70s. What's clear is that the same crowd that's squawking now about the evils of our industrialized society was saying the same back then, the only difference being that the evil industrial output of greedy capitalists was causing the earth to cool, not warm.

Even if one were to accept the premise of your post, at best it proves that "climatology" is a very new discipline that's in essence still finding itself, which easily causes one to be skeptical about how much these so-called "scientists" really know and whether, and how often, they're simply tossing mud at the side of the barn to see whether it will stick. When you throw in the virulently left-wing, anti-U.S., collectivist bent of groups such as the "Union of Concerned Scientists," coupled with the University of East Anglia scandal and Climategate, you wind up with a severe case of lack of credibility. Please pardon me if I exercise my right to be skeptical.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 9 months ago

"Please pardon me if I exercise my right to be skeptical."

As if your commitment to your ideology allows anything else.

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

Actually, Bozo, I'm skeptical about most things, no matter which side puts it forth.

jafs 3 years, 9 months ago

Check the fact check link Bozo posted above.

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

I have. Aside from the fact that it's from a source that no objective analyst would ever trust, especially on this issue, it nonetheless confirms the blatantly dishonest and unprofessional conduct of the "scientists" involved. Then, just as Glowarmer apologists have tried to do with the existence of the CIA files from the early 1970s, it lamely regurgitates the mantra that "even though these guys were jerks, global warming still exists." Well, for many of us, the credibility of those pushing this issue is critical, especially in terms of the draconian remedies that have been shoved at us and what that would mean for America. To do what ManBearPig and his pals want to do to America with this issue, after certain of the key proponents of it have had their credibility shot to pieces, is lunacy.

jafs 3 years, 9 months ago

Read it again.

You seem to have missed the point.

Ken Lassman 3 years, 9 months ago

Sorry, the historic record speaks for itself. The Wisconsin group was correct in pointing out the potentially devastating effects of climate change, the CIA appropriately recommended a more coordinated and comprehensive effort to understand climate change, the Congress wisely funded the effort,and the scientific community revised its forecasts to match the incoming data and ever refined models. Seems like this is an example right up there with the space program in terms of its success. No small coincidence that NASA and the climate community share many common threads in their collective history.

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

Yes, DougCounty, the record does speak for itself. The CIA files correctly reported that "scientists" at the time were warning of the potentially devastating effects of "climate change," but, as I've previously stated more than once, the fear was of global freezing, not global warming. Now, of course, some of them have changed their tune but with the same political goals in mind, and with no more credibility than they had in the early '70s. Naturally recurring cyclical change is something that politically-motivated Glowarmers just can't accept. In short, no matter how much you try to spin this, you're still trying to polish a particular item that the rules of this forum don't allow me to identify specifically.

Ken Lassman 3 years, 9 months ago

You have a very funny idea of how science works, Cato. Unlike your ideology, scientific understanding evolves with the additional data that is collected. Holding climatologists to their understanding of climate trends in the 70s is akin to holding our understanding of gravitational theory to Galileo or even Newton. You understanding of how science works needs to evolve, Cato, although you are perfectly entitled to adhere to whatever political ideology you care to have cast in stone. Just stop confusing the two.

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

No, DougCounty, you and the other Glowarmers need to stop confusing science with politics, which has been at the core of the global warming hoax since its inception. While you and your fellow leftist lemmings whine all the time about CEO salaries, you apparently have no problem at all with the untold millions that ManBearPig and his pals will rake it under the carbon credits scam they've concocted, which their liberal Democrat enablers have tried to foist on American industry. Having someone of your ilk complain about mixing science with politics is like hearing Pat Robertson complain about mixing politics with religion.

Ken Lassman 3 years, 9 months ago

I am amused that instead of discussing the issues, you seem compelled to continue to call anyone who disagrees with you ideologically slanderous names like Glowarmers, whining leftist lemmings, ManBearPig, enablers, and the rest. You immediately lose all credibility in the public forum by calling everyone names instead of furthering an actual discussion of the topic at hand in a civil dialogue.

Given this performance, and given the fact that you've demonstrated the inability to discern the difference between science and politics, I see you as completely irrelevant to any real discussion of the issues.

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

"Given this performance, and given the fact that you've demonstrated the inability to discern the difference between science and politics, I see you as completely irrelevant to any real discussion of the issues."

A Glowarmer attempting to accuse anyone of not knowing the difference between science and politics is as laughable as it gets.

I may be irrelevant, but my comments aren't.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.