659 replies to this topic

[niner]

BTW QJones, I'm not saying that I agree or "believe" the position being staked out in this video. I simply found that, for myself, it passed "the smell test" after a cursory review.

It was supposed to pass the smell test. All good propaganda does.

The issue of global warming is one that I have become more and more reluctant to maintain strong beliefs about.

This is exactly what the propagandists wanted.

[Mind]

The issue is highly polarized and there are propagandists on both sides. Al "the debate is over" Gore is certainly not helping the AGW proponents. In science the debate is never over, there are only degrees of confidence.

Some scientists who have proposed alternative theories have had their lives threatened and they are under constant unwarranted public ridicule even before any critical review of their theories. Talk about forcing a single theory onto the public!

If AGW proponents want to increase the accuracy of their models they should quantify the effects of land use/surface changes, increased irrigation, increased/decreased irradiance, increased/decreased cosmic radiation, increased/decreased cloudcover, etc... not just dismiss every thing outside of AGW as heretical musings of idiots.

[lucid]

It was supposed to pass the smell test. All good propaganda does.

Yup, the trick to passing the 'smell test' is to use respectable analysis on made up facts. While most self respecting propaganda will mix in a few logical falicies with the standard mix of factual lies, I find the back bone of any good propaganda film to be simple lies about fact. Lay people will not know that the facts are incorrect and conclude that if the analysis seems logical, then the propaganda film makers argument must be correct as well.

This is why the internet is such a great social force, when watching a video, it is easy to find rebuttals online, and independently look up factual evidence. After a few rounds of back and forth rebuttals (or sometimes just one round of back and forth), it begins to get easier to weed through some of the garbage. Hopefully politics will eventually pick up on the ideal format of having debates occur over days and months instead of hours. Sorting through bullshit doesn't happen instantly. Cheers.

[Brainbox]

None of the sides that are participating in the current escalative "debate" of the climate issue passes my "smell test". All I can conclude from the absorbed data (mainly through watching these kind of video's and reading newspaper articles) is that we simply don't know the facts.
- We don't know the bandwidth of normal climate changes (which is probably not static but dynamically dependant on tons of natural factors we are not even aware of),
- Causality of most standpoints is insufficiently proven,
- We don't know "the whole picture". Our models are insufficient. We even cannot predict short-term weather (sorry Mind ).
So, the confidence level of the facts we know is poor and we don't know all the facts.

To me the current campaigns and organised climate awareness looks like starting the build of a couple of nuclear fusion power plants based on the level of factual knowledge we have on that subject. Premature and irrational.

What is the benefit of the "information" campaigns, in effect emotionalising the subject by organising e.g. the life earth concerts in this stage of premature knowledge? In the country I live in, with a brand new socialist/christian-democratic coalition, it is now proposed to ban (as in forbid) the use of old-fashioned light-bulbs in favour of the newer more energy efficient types. By law. While at the same time plans are effectuated to build a couple of CO2 producing coal burning power plants on a short notice. Oops. I mean, how utterly inconsistent can a policy be before the average Joe wakes up? Probably he is distracted from these issues and other emerging real-life issues by a soothing life earth concert at which he had a great time and the good feeling he gets after he got rid of all the old light bulbs from his home. [sleep]

It's all symbolic and willingly detached from reality if you ask me. Ridiculous. Makes me really mad. Who is loosing perspective?

[Mind]

Issuing degrees of confidence is one thing I will give the IPCC credit for. In their latest pronouncement they didn't say "the debate is over" like Algore, they said they are 90% confident that humans are causing climate warming. Now what I would like to see is a quantification of the amount that humans contribute, because humans are not the only natural force upon the climate. If that were true (as most media outlets portray) then 1998 would not have been the warmest year in the last hundred or so years of climate records, it would've been last year (2006), because carbon levels are going up year over year (aside: methane levels have actually gone down in the last two years - methane is calculated to contribute to 20% of the warming, also ocean temps have dropped slightly in the last two years). Since 1998 the average earth temperature has been stable, not rising. Current models predict the temp to start rising again soon.

From what I have heard, in order to more accurately quote the temp of "the earth", AGW theorists are going to start listing the air and ocean temp in combo. This makes sense, since they are intimately connected.

[Brainbox]

Yes, I could agree. The scientific facts would still be present; the weird political dynamics are a different issue indeed. Do you have links to objective information about the scientific view on the matter? I'd rather trust you, being professionally engaged with this matter (at least that's what I assume) than searching for it myself.

[Mind]

I do converse with the research community from time to time, but I am a short term forecaster and not a researcher. I am a meteorologist, not a climatologist. So I do follow the debate closely, but I am not an expert.

Surprisingly the IPCC is not too bad as far as objectivity goes. They are under immense, let me repeat, IMMENSE pressure by AGW proponents to say "the debate is over, we are all doomed". Yet they do issue confidence levels in their projections and they incorporate many inputs (such as a whole suite of climate models, economic forecasts, population forecasts, etc...). What you end up with is the "wisdom of the crowd", instead of one intense fringe opinion.

[Mind]

Another important point. Let us say the AGW theory is 100% correct and every bit of warming that has occurred over the last century is due to human carbon emissions. That still does not mean that the computer model projections of the future are correct. In my opinion, one major flaw in the climate models is their "business as usual" assumption to fossil fuel usage. Most of the models in the IPCC suite assume that by 2025 oil consumption will increase from 83 million barrels a day (now) to 160 million barrels a day. Ask advancedatheist (Imminst member) if that is even remotely possible. lol. It seems world oil production has already leveled off and will likely decline. There is enough coal to make up for the loss of oil so you could argue that, hey, the net carbon emissions will be the same. The good part is that the technology to create zero emission coal plants already exists. Anyway, I'll eat my shorts (one pair...natural fibers) if humans are still only driving internal combustion autos in the year 2100, as many climate models assume.

[JonesGuy]

We don't yet have zero-emission coal technology, but I'll happily agree that we have pretty good resources in that area available (ready to be implemented). Once we incorporate market innovation into scrubbing CO2 out of coal plants, we'll do much better.

But we don't yet have enough pressure to start scrubbing

- We don't know "the whole picture". Our models are insufficient. We even cannot predict short-term weather (sorry Mind  ).
So, the confidence level of the facts we know is poor and we don't know all the facts.

This talking point bugs me a bit, because it's kinda comparing apples and oranges. I can't predict what the DOW will be next week (short-term forcasting), I can merely give a range. But I DO know that a decrease in energy cost or a decrease in transaction costs are good for the economy (long-term forcasting). If I were to present the idea that reducing transaction costs would boost the world's wealth, you cannot rebut me by pointing out that I don't know enough to predict the DOW next week.

Along the same line, you can easily predict that locking in more heat into the atmosphere will affect the climate; despite not knowing whether it will rain or not next week.

[biknut]

Along the same line, you can easily predict that locking in more heat into the atmosphere will affect the climate; despite not knowing whether it will rain or not next week.

I was with you till this point. We don't really know that we're doing this. There is a theory, unproven, but it's rapidly looking less and less likely to be right. It's already been 10 years since there's been any warming, but in that time we've been "locking in" as you say, a lot more heat. It didn't get warmer. Where's the heat?

The bottom line is that the warming theory predicts warming. There was very little warming to start with. Now there's no warming when there should be more than before.

[JonesGuy]

Again, what temperature are you claiming is not rising? Troposphere? Ocean depth? Ocean surface?

Keep in mind, too, feedback effects. CO2 will increase heat retention, which will allow increased H20 retention, which will lead to more heat.

Edit: are you claiming that you don't think that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? That increasing CO2 will increase heat retention?

Edited by QJones, 11 July 2007 - 03:23 PM.

[biknut]

Again, what temperature are you claiming is not rising?  Troposphere?  Ocean depth?  Ocean surface?

Keep in mind, too, feedback effects.  CO2 will increase heat retention, which will allow increased H20 retention, which will lead to more heat.

Edit: are you claiming that you don't think that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?  That increasing CO2 will increase heat retention?

It doesn't matter what I think, the facts are the facts. There isn't much warming.

The facts are these. The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.

Lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

There are strong indications from solar studies that Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.

What part of the earth do you think is getting warmer?

[Lazarus Long]

Actually the facts are not quite how you insist on presenting them Biknut.

http://news.yahoo.co...DFjyURyEgoE1vAI
Solar variations not behind global warming: study

By Ben Hirschler
Tue Jul 10, 7:03 PM ET

LONDON (Reuters) - The sun's changing energy levels are not to blame for recent global warming and, if anything, solar variations over the past 20 years should have had a cooling effect, scientists said on Wednesday.

Their findings add to a growing body of evidence that human activity, not natural causes, lies behind rising average world temperatures, which are expected to reach their second highest level this year since records began in the 1860s.

There is little doubt that solar variability has influenced the Earth's climate in the past and may well have been a factor in the first half of the last century, but British and Swiss researchers said it could not explain recent warming.

"Over the past 20 years, all the trends in the sun that could have had an influence on Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures," they wrote in the Proceedings of the Royal Society.

Most scientists say emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars, are the prime cause of the current warming trend. A dwindling group pins the blame on natural variations in the climate system, or a gradual rise in the sun's energy output.

In order to unpick that possible link, Mike Lockwood of Britain's Rutherford Appleton Laboratory and Claus Froehlich of the World Radiation Centre in Davos, Switzerland, studied factors that could have forced climate change in recent decades, including variations in total solar irradiance and cosmic rays.

The data was smoothed to take account of the 11-year sunspot cycle, which affects the amount of heat the sun emits but does not impact the Earth's surface air temperature, due to the way the oceans absorb and retain heat.

They concluded that the rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen since the late 1980s could not be ascribed to solar variability, whatever mechanism was invoked. Britain's Royal Society -- one of the world's oldest scientific academies, founded in 1660 -- said the new research was an important rebuff to climate change skeptics.

"At present there is a small minority which is seeking to deliberately confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day," it said in a statement.

The 10 warmest years in the past 150 years have all been since 1990 and a United Nations climate panel, drawing on the work of 2,500 scientists, said this year it was "very likely" human activities were the main cause.

The panel gave a "best estimate" that temperatures would rise 1.8 to 4.0 degrees Celsius (3.2 to 7.8 Fahrenheit) this century.

Also in response to
The Great Global Warming Swindle

'No Sun link' to climate change  at BBC, Jul 11
http://us.rd.yahoo.c...ure/6290228.stm

A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change. It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.

Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present. "This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.

Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.

"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website.

"You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said.

There are strong indications from solar studies that Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.

What part of the earth do you think is getting warmer?

At the present time glaciers from Antarctica to Greenland are all in rapid retreat. Alaska, Siberia, Chile, Alps, Pyrenees, the Himalaya's and even Kilimanjaro are all receding fast due to abnormally high global temperatures.

Ocean temperatures are on the rise as well, then again the satellite data that you are claiming deserves direct scrutiny, do you have the link to it directly for us to examine?

Not the link to somebody talking about the data but the data itself.

[biknut]

Actually the facts are not quite how you insist on presenting them Biknut.





At the present time glaciers from Antarctica to Greenland are all in rapid retreat.  Alaska, Siberia, Chile, Alps, Pyrenees, the Himalaya's and even Kilimanjaro are all receding fast due to abnormally high global temperatures.

Ocean temperatures are on the rise as well, then again the satellite data that you are claiming deserves direct scrutiny, do you have the link to it directly for us to examine?

Not the link to somebody talking about the data but the data itself.

Well maybe the cosmic ray theory is wrong, or maybe not. I'm absolutely sure research will be continuing about it, and the theory is in it's infancy.

The graph on the bottom with the blue line looks very convincing. Temperature climbs steadily year after year from 1975 till 2000. Never mind that in reality it stopped going up after 1998 till today, but of coarse the graph conveniently stops at 2000 so it doesn't have to show that little irritating fact. Then after all that when you actually study what this graph is telling us, it shows that in all this time the temperature went up a whopping 1 degree F. If you had never heard of the global warming theory wouldn't you think it's possible this could be a natural occurrence?

Antarctica, melting? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there won't be significant overall loss of ice in Antarctica for the rest of this century.

Greenland? I don't think we need to worry about that either. During the last period between ice ages, 116,000-130,000 years ago, when temperatures were on average 5 C (9 F) higher than now, the glaciers on Greenland did not completely melt away. http://www.breitbart...&show_article=1

Himalaya's Melting? I'm not going there to find out the truth, and yeah I see all the reports that say they're shrinking, but...

Himalayan Glaciers Are Growing ... and Confounding Global Warming Alarmists

Written By: James M. Taylor
Published In: Environment News
Publication Date: November 1, 2006
Publisher: The Heartland Institute


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who have recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.
A new study of the Karakoram, Hindu Kush, and Western Himalaya mountain ranges by researchers at England's Newcastle University shows consistent recent growth among the region's glaciers. Researchers found cooler summers are failing to melt winter snows, which are themselves becoming more frequent, resulting in advancing ice sheets.
The study was published in the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate.
http://www.heartland...cfm?artId=20073

I saw a show on television saying the same thing.

Kilimanjaro? From the reports I've seen about that, I think most scientists agree that deforestation is the cause rather than global warming.

As far as Alaska, Siberia, Chile, Alps, and the Pyrenees, that's probably global warming,

but that doesn't mean it's caused by man.

[Lazarus Long]

Kilimanjaro? From the reports I've seen about that, I think most scientists agree that deforestation is the cause rather than global warming.

Excuse me but the glaciers that are melting on Kilamanjaro are melting from above the tree line. Deforestation has nothing to do with it. The loss of that water source is having a negative effect on tree growth below when combined with deforestation but no the other way around.

Antarctica, melting? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there won't be significant overall loss of ice in Antarctica for the rest of this century.

This is not a glass half full, half empty comparison, how many more sheets the size of Rhode Island have to calve off before you recognize that the ice cap is shrinking and that they are not being replaced?

Earth - melting in the heat?
By Richard Black
http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/4315968.stm

"Everybody thinks that the Antarctic is shrinking due to climate change, but the reality is much more complex," says David Vaughan, a principal investigator at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, UK.

"Parts of it appear to be thickening as a result of snowfall increases. But the peninsula is thinning at an alarming rate due to warming.

"The West Antarctic sheet is also thinning, and we're not sure of the reason why."

On the up

Temperatures in the Peninsula appear to be increasing at around twice the global average - about 2C over the last 50 years. Those figures are based on measurements made by instruments at scientific stations.

Earlier this year, David Vaughan's group published research showing that the vast majority of glaciers along the Peninsula - 87% of the 244 studied - are in retreat. 

I suggest you try getting your stats from the source again

world glacier monitoring service
http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/

glacier mass balance data 2003/2004 and 2004/2005
http://www.geo.unizh...mbb9/sum05.html

1  Summary of the balance years 2003/2004 and 2004/2005

Continuous mass balance statistics are calculated based on the 30 glaciers in 9 mountain ranges***. Data are now available for the years 1980-2004 and preliminary values for the year 2005 from 27 glaciers in 9 mountain ranges.

The average mass balance of the reference mountain glaciers around the world continues to decrease, with tentative figures indicating a further thickness reduction of 0.7 m and 0.6 m during 2004 and 2005, respectively. This continues the trend in accelerated ice loss during the past two and a half decades and brings the total loss since 1980 at about 9.6 m.

Just out of curiosity how many growing glaciers do you see on this list?


2 Mass balance data 2003/2004 and 2004/2005

Name b 04 b 05
[mm w.e.] [mm w.e.]
Antarctica
Bahia del Diablo -110 -230
Argentina
Martial Este -1256 -844
Austria
Hintereisferner -667 -1061
Jamtal F. -228 -975
Kesselwandferner -189 -59
Sonnblickkees 8 -323
Vernagtferner -407 -523
Wurten K. -333 -448
Kleiner Fleisskees 82 -111
Grosser Goldbergkees 132 -260
Pasterze n.a. -899
Bolivia
Chacaltaya -1822 -2057
Charquini sur -1486 -2498
Zongo -523 -1693
Canada
Helm -2200 n.a.
Peyto -1850 n.a.
Place -1595 -1295
White 37 -612
Chile
Echaurren Norte -570 -850
China
Urumqihe E-Br. -706 -850
Urumqihe S.No.1 -755 -748
Urumqihe W-Br. -844 -692
Ecuador
Antizana 15 Alpha -572 -789
France
Saint Sorlin -2450 -2500
Sarennes -2820 -3230
Iceland
Breidamjok. E. B. -1330 n.a.
Bruarjokull -800 n.a.
Eyabakkajokull -1310 n.a.
Hofsjokull E -1500 -20
Hofsjokull N -1370 -430
Hofsjokull SW -1500 -570
Koeldukvislarj. n.a. -n.a.
Langjokull Southern Dome -1487 n.a.
Tungnaarjokull -1700 n.a.
Italy
Careser -1588 -2005
Ciardoney -1060 -2230
Fontana Bianca -994 -1471
Malavalle n.a. -787
Pendente -427 -936
Vedretta Lunga -1524 -1233
Kazakhstan
Ts. Tuyuksuyskiy 60 -338
New Zealand
Brewster 700 n.a.
Norway
Aalfotbreen -100 670
Austdalsbreeen -960 190
Austre Broeggerbreen -1120 -1000
Breidalblikkbrea -950 -280
Engabreen 820 890
Graafjellsbreen -810 10
Graasubreen -490 -500
Hansbreen -570 40
Hansebreen -510 -90
Hardangerjoekulen 80 720
Hellstugubreen -840 -290
Irenebreen -605 -862
Kongsvegen -770 -480
Langfjordjoekul -1920 -1260
Midre Lovenbreen -970 -740
Nigardsbreen -40 1100
Rundvassbreen -210 n.a.
Storbreen -580 -60
Storglombreen 120 330
Waldemarbreen -641 -722
Russia
No. 125 -220 n.a.
Maliy Aktru -150 -30
Leviy Aktru -240 n.a.
Garabashi n.a. 200
Djankuat 700 400
Spain
Maladeta -1516 -1479
Sweden
Marmaglaciaeren n.a. -540
Rabots Glaciaer n.a. -1170
Riukojietna n.a. n.a.
Storglaciaeren -190 -80
Tarfalaglaciaeren n.a. -930
Switzerland
Basodino -490 -1170
Gries -1330 -1670
Silvretta 119 -650
USA
Colombia (2057) -1830 -3210
Daniels -2130 -2900
Easton -960 -2450
Emmons n.a. n.a.
Foss -1940 -3120
Gulkana -2290 -250
Ice Worm -2000 -2850
Lower Curtis -1510 -2750
Lynch -1980 -2620
Nisqually n.a. n.a.
Noisy Creek n.a. -2410
North Klawatti n.a. -2060
Rainbow -1670 -2650
Sandalee n.a. -2290
Sholes -1860 -2840
Silver n.a. -1490
South Cascade -1650 -2450
Wolverine -2280 n.a.
Yawning -1780 -3020

And just how fast are they growing in relation to the general rate of retreat?

[biknut]

Thursday, August 17, 2006
New data shows ocean cooling

By DENNIS AVERY and ALEX AVERY

The world's oceans cooled suddenly between 2003 and 2005, losing more than 20 percent of the global-warming heat they'd absorbed over the previous 50 years. That's a vast amount of heat, since the oceans hold 1,000 times as heat as the atmosphere. The ocean-cooling researchers say the heat was likely vented into space, since it hasn't been found stored anywhere on Earth.

John Lyman, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, says the startling news of ocean cooling comes courtesy of the new ARGO ocean temperature floats being distributed worldwide. ARGOs are filling in former blank spots on the world's ocean monitoring system – and vastly narrowing our past uncertainty about sparsely measured ocean temperatures.

Lyman says the discovery of the sudden ocean coolings undercuts faith in global-warming forecasts because coolings randomly interrupt the trends laid out by the global circulation models. As Lyman puts it, "The cooling reflects interannual variability that is not well represented by a linear trend."

The new ocean cooling also recalls several NASA studies in the past five years that found a huge natural heat vent over the Pacific ocean's so-called warm pool, a band of water thousands of miles wide, roughly astride the equator. Studies coordinated by Bruce Weilicki, of NASA's Langley Research Center, found that when sea surface temperatures rise above 28 degrees C, Pacific rainfall becomes more efficient. More of the cloud droplets form raindrops, so fewer are left to form high, icy, cirrus clouds that seal in heat. As a result, the area of cirrus clouds is reduced, and far more heat passes out into space. This cools the surface of the warm pool, the world's warmest ocean water.

Weilicki's research teams say that the huge natural heat vent emitted about as much heat during the 1980s and 90s as would be expected from a redoubling of the carbon dioxide content in the air. They used satellites to measure cloud cover and long-range aircraft to monitor sea temperatures.

Layman says the sudden ocean coolings particularly complicate the problem of separating natural temperature changes from man-made impacts on the Earth's temperature. The impact of human-emitted CO2 has been assumed to accumulate in a straight-line trend over many decades.

Meanwhile, since the 1980s, the Earth's ice cores, seabed sediments and cave stalagmites have been revealing a moderate, natural 1,500-year climate cycle linked to solar irradiance. Temperatures jump suddenly and erratically 1 to 2 degrees C above the mean at the latitude of Washington, D.C., and New York City for centuries at a time, and more than that at the Earth's poles.
Temperatures vary hardly at all at the equator during the 1,500-year cycle, and Bruce Weilicki's NASA heat-vent findings seem to indicate why. The warm pool of the Pacific acts like a cooking pot, with its "lid" popping open to emit steam when the water gets too hot.

The more we look, the more we learn about the Earth's complex climate forces – though not much of the new knowledge comes from the huge, unverified global circulation models favored by the man-made warming activists.

http://www.ocregiste...cle_1245606.php

[biknut]

Mount Kilimanjaro's Glacier Is Crumbling

Andrea Minarcek
National Geographic Adventure

September 23, 2003

BlaBlaBla and then this,


According to Hardy, forest reduction in the areas surrounding Kilimanjaro, and not global warming, might be the strongest human influence on glacial recession. "Clearing for agriculture and forest fires—often caused by honey collectors trying to smoke bees out of their hives—have greatly reduced the surrounding forests," he says. The loss of foliage causes less moisture to be pumped into the atmosphere, leading to reduced cloud cover and precipitation and increased solar radiation and glacial evaporation.

Evidence of glacial recession on Kilimanjaro is often dated from 1912, but most scientists believe tropical glaciers began receding as early as the 1850s. Stefan L. Hastenrath, a professor of atmospheric studies at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, has found clues in local reports of a dramatic drop in East African lake levels after 1880. Lake evaporation indicates a decrease in precipitation and cloudiness around Kilimanjaro.

http://news.national...roglaciers.html

I see lots of other reports that say the same thing as this one.

[Lazarus Long]

The more we look, the more we learn about the Earth's complex climate forces – though not much of the new knowledge comes from the huge, unverified global circulation models favored by the man-made warming activists.

Some cooling of the Earth's oceans is direct result of increased run off from polar glacial melt and this is recognized and not fully integrated into the modeling but when talking about ocean temperatures it is necessary to talk about many factors including current and depth but frankly again I have read the opposite and one factor that demonstrates that oceans temperature *differentials* (the difference between polar cold and equatorial warmth) is that the currents driven by those differences are slowing down.

For starters please demonstrate how your article correlates with this NASA data that clearly demonstrates a long term dramatic warming trend?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/



In fact virtually none of the claims from the authors you cite are supported by actual observed data from legitimate scientific sources like NASA, ISA, NOAA, the various global geophysical studies etc.


http://www.grida.no/...te/vital/17.htm

The problem with using sites like the World Climate Report
http://www.worldclim...-ocean-warming/

May 14, 2007
Questioning Ocean Warming?
Filed under: Temperature History, Sea Level Rise —

We just did an internet search on “Ocean Warming” and found an incredible 7.2 million sites! We sampled a few and found exactly what we expected – endless stories of how the oceans of the world are heating up at an unprecedented rate; absolutely anything and everything related to the ocean is currently in peril according to these sites. Even if you live thousands of miles from the sea, ocean warming will negatively impact you given how ocean temperatures influence weather and climate any place on the planet. Our survey of “Ocean Warming” internet sites did not reveal anyone questioning whether or not the oceans are actually warming up – “Ocean Warming”

Is that they are not science, they are politics dressed up as science.

Don't get me wrong there are plenty of those on the other side of the debate as well but let's try and debate here using the most objective sources of data we can find and filter the stuff of politics AND culture AND economics out of it.

Let's begin with a realization that yes, the modeling is complex, but no it is not impossible to model and then how will we deal with the data once its veracity is resolved?

There is nothing wrong with contemplating how to cope scenarios for warming AND cooling, creating viable strategies and tactics for either possiblity. In fact regardless of whether global warming is man made, natural, or both as I suspect, even you have accepted that it is occurring (well some of the time ) ) so it follows that developing tactics to cope with that reality more effectively is simply logical.

Some of those tactics will address prevention, some with coping with impacts but the one tactic that is not rational and borders on criminal neglect, is denial.

Saying that global warming is natural also does not mean there is nothing to be done about it. The weather is natural but that does not stop you from building a roof and sheltering under it does it?

Saying it is a natural phenomenon and there is nothing to be done about it is NOT rational, nor a particularly healthy mindset. It does not prepare or prevent in any manner. Denial is not a strategy and it is more problematic if the means and motives for doing so become suspect.

So here in these debates while news and studies are welcome from all sides none should be treated as gospel but in all cases the data should also be introduced as well as the source of the data.

In the cases of sat data the actual sat data logs is usually available to support or interpret so it follows that we are better off looking at such data for ourselves than accepting anyone else's interpretation of it as I think all of us are intelligent enough to draw our own conclusions.

So I ask you again Biknut to please present more data not just other people's interpretations of the data. More ocean temps.

http://www1.whoi.edu/jgofs.html

http://modis.gsfc.na...oceanChoice.php

http://news.bbc.co.u...629/6528979.stm

http://www.oceanexpl.../maps/maps.html

http://www.maineharb...her/seatemp.htm

Some of those are real time sources of data if you desire to initiate your own studies but they are also sources of historical data trends. Please contribute more but also describe how they gather their data, sats bouy's stations etc, where and how many too.

http://oceanworld.ta...temperature.htm

http://www2.dpi.qld....mate/15674.html

I suggest when talking about ocean temp that the subject of study include more about thermohaline activity since that is about 90% of the world's oceans.

http://earth.usc.edu...ina/Oceans.html

When looking at currents and their impact not only are we talking about el Niño and la Niña but the Gulf Stream, the Humbolt, and numerous other global thermal exchanges in the thermohaline system.

It is a these thermohaline systems that help regulate and moderate much of the world's climate and these are being impacted faster than originally thought possible.

http://www.pik-potsd...fact_sheet.html

http://www.whoi.edu/...id=282&cid=9986



Recent trends to the thermohaline system on a global scale pretend some very dire consequences if they continue and it is valid to wonder if we have not passed a point of no return already. It is not valid to ignore seeking solutions if the data is valid.

You see Biknut all that fresh water coming from the rapid increase in glacial melting is also changing ocean salinity and that can have an even more significant impact on the oceans currents and the ability to thermally regulate than just the temperature drop caused locally in some regions by the run off, an effect that tends to dissipate rapidly anyway but the impact of changing salinity remains for a considerable time.

You see thermohalines drive the oceans gyres.

http://oceancurrents...cean-gyres.html

http://www.physicalg...mentals/8q.html

These drive large scale climate and growing seasons in places like well, not just England but all of Europe and the US and Asia and South America and well I hope you get the point. But gyres and the primary ocean currents also impact fishing stocks and large scale animal migrations and even the cost of shipping goods in a global economy.

They have been diminishing due to the global warming trends and seeing them suddenly dramatically shift as they do so becomes one possible scenario that would have significant and sudden climactic impact.

http://www.sciencema...ct/304/5670/555
(abstract)
Science 23 April 2004:
Vol. 304. no. 5670, pp. 555 - 559
DOI: 10.1126/science.1094917

Research Articles
Decline of Subpolar North Atlantic Circulation During the 1990s
Sirpa Häkkinen1* and Peter B. Rhines2

Observations of sea surface height reveal that substantial changes have occurred over the past decade in the mid- to high-latitude North Atlantic Ocean. TOPEX/Poseidon altimeter data show that subpolar sea surface height increased during the 1990s, and the geostrophic velocity derived from altimeter data exhibits declining subpolar gyre circulation. Combining the data from earlier satellites, we find that subpolar circulation may have been weaker in the late 1990s than in the late 1970s and 1980s. Direct current-meter observations in the boundary current of the Labrador Sea support the weakening circulation trend of the 1990s and, together with hydrographic data, show that the mid- to late 1990s decline extends deep in the water column. Analysis of the local surface forcing suggests that the 1990s buoyancy forcing has a dynamic effect consistent with altimetric and hydrographic observations: A weak thermohaline forcing allows the decay of the domed structure of subpolar isopycnals and weakening of circulation.

http://www.nasa.gov/...4/0415gyre.html
April 15, 2004 - (date of web publication)
SATELLITES RECORD WEAKENING NORTH ATLANTIC CURRENT
1 NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Code 971, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA.
2 University of Washington, Box 357940, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.

The current, known as the sub polar gyre, has weakened in the past in connection with certain phases of a large-scale atmospheric pressure system known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). But the NAO has switched phases twice in the 1990s, while the subpolar gyre current has continued to weaken. Whether the trend is part of a natural cycle or the result of other factors related to global warming is unknown.

"It is a signal of large climate variability in the high latitudes," Hakkinen said. "If this trend continues, it could indicate reorganization of the ocean climate system, perhaps with changes in the whole climate system, but we need another good five to 10 years to say something like that is happening." Rhines said, "The subpolar zone of the Earth is a key site for studying the climate. It's like Grand Central Station there, as many of the major ocean water masses pass through from the Arctic and from warmer latitudes. They are modified in this basin. Computer models have shown the slowing and speeding up of the subpolar gyre can influence the entire ocean circulation system."

[biknut]

It seems futile to keep showing back and forth study after study contradicting the other. Honestly I don't know which ones are correct. Do you?

The bottom line is that global surface temperatures (if we can even believe these reports) have flat lined since 1998 after steady rise, adding up to 1 degree, or 1 1/2 degree F. This tends to make me believe there's probably no man made global warming, but that it's probably natural because the warming was so little, and it seemingly stopped. Right now I'm pretty sure this year will continue this trend, and I'll even go out on a limb and say it's going to be cooler than last year. I know that's not much of a prediction since last year was second hottest, but what has been happening isn't what the global warming theory predicts.

[struct]

The following 3 graphs pertain to Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent.
The 3rd graph is essentially the same as 2nd one but condensed (covers the period from 1979 to today). 3rd graph gives a better picture of the trend. Notice that in the latest two weeks the ice extent is almost 2 million km^2 less than the mean.
Zero (0) line represent the mean.

[struct]

It seems futile to keep showing back and forth study after study contradicting the other.

Just wanted to point out, so that biknut does not get confused, that even though L.L. graphs point up and mine point down they don't contradict each other.

[biknut]

It seems futile to keep showing back and forth study after study contradicting the other.

Just wanted to point out, so that biknut does not get confused, that even though L.L. graphs point up and mine point down they don't contradict each other.

Try and answer this question for me please. In the last 30 years, what year was the warmest year on record? I forget.

[struct]

2005

[biknut]

Data from the Climate Research Unit of the School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich in England
Yearly averages for the decade from 1996 to 2006.

Year ...... Variation from Baseline.....Yearly Change

1996: .............. +0.138
1997: .............. +0.347 ....................... +0.209
1998: .............. +0.526 ....................... +0.179
1999: .............. +0.302 ........................ -0.224
2000: ............. +0.277 ........................ -0.025
2001: ............. +0.406 ........................ +0.129
2002: ............. +0.455 ........................ +0.049
2003: ............. +0.465 ........................ +0.010
2004: ............. +0.444 ........................ -0.021
2005: ............. +0.475 ........................ +0.031
2006: ............. +0.422 ........................ -0.053

http://www.cru.uea.a...hadcrut3vgl.txt


http://www.cru.uea.a...ta/temperature/

[struct]

From NASA



http://www.nasa.gov/...05_warmest.html

[biknut]

From NASA



http://www.nasa.gov/...05_warmest.html

This explains where NASA went wrong.

http://www.cru.uea.a...ta/temperature/

Edited by biknut, 14 July 2007 - 05:34 AM.

[biknut]

Why do global and hemispheric temperature anomalies differ from those quoted in the IPCC assessment and the media?
We have areally averaged grid-box temperature anomalies (using the HadCRUT3v dataset), with weighting according to the area of
each 5° x 5° grid box, into hemispheric values; we then averaged these two values to create the global-average anomaly. However, the
global and hemispheric anomalies used by IPCC and in the World Meteorological Organization and Met Office news releases were
calculated using optimal averaging. This technique uses information on how temperatures at each location co-vary, to weight the data
to take best account of areas where there are no observations at a given time. The method uses the same basic information (i.e. in
future HadCRUT3v and subsequent improvements), along with the data-coverage and the measurement and sampling errors, to
estimate uncertainties on the global and hemispheric average anomalies. The more elementary technique (used here) produces no
estimates of uncertainties, but our results generally lie within the ranges estimated by optimum averaging. The constraint that the
average be zero over 1961-90 in the optimal averages also adds a small offset compared to the other data described here.

The present optimal averages with annual uncertainties are accessible from the Hadley Centre. The data include values filtered to show
decadal and longer-term variations and uncertainties. This replaces the IPCC 2001 version at the above site (see Parker et al. 2004).
All other versions of global and hemispheric temperature anomalies are only steps to the IPCC series.

1996: .............. +0.138
1997: .............. +0.347 ....................... +0.209
1998: .............. +0.526 ....................... +0.179 Warmest year
1999: .............. +0.302 ........................ -0.224
2000: ............. +0.277 ........................ -0.025
2001: ............. +0.406 ........................ +0.129
2002: ............. +0.455 ........................ +0.049
2003: ............. +0.465 ........................ +0.010
2004: ............. +0.444 ........................ -0.021
2005: ............. +0.475 ........................ +0.031
2006: ............. +0.422 ........................ -0.053



http://www.cru.uea.a...ta/temperature/

Am I helping?

Thanks for not making fun of my avatar.

Edited by biknut, 14 July 2007 - 05:42 AM.

[biknut]

For starters please demonstrate how your article correlates with this NASA data that clearly demonstrates a long term dramatic warming trend?

What I guess, is that NASA reports are based on estimates rather than actual figures.

[biknut]

Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who have recently claimed the
glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.
A new study of the Karakoram, Hindu Kush, and Western Himalaya mountain ranges by researchers at England's Newcastle University
shows consistent recent growth among the region's glaciers. Researchers found cooler summers are failing to melt winter snows, which
are themselves becoming more frequent, resulting in advancing ice sheets.
The study was published in the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate.

http://www.heartland...cfm?artId=20073

I saw a show on television saying the same thing.

Here's a little more information about the man I saw on television. His name is VK Raina, and he's a leading glaciologist and I think it
said he works for the Indian government. His job is to study some of the Indian glaciers.

Experts question theory on global warming

Anil Anand

New Delhi, February 11, 2007

Believe it or not. There are only about a dozen scientists working on 9,575 glaciers in India under the aegis of the Geological
Society of India. Is the available data enough to believe that the glaciers are retreating due to global warming?


Some experts have questioned the alarmists theory on global warming leading to shrinkage of Himalayan glaciers. VK Raina, a
leading glaciologist and former ADG of GSI is one among them.

He feels that the research on Indian glaciers is negligible. Nothing but the remote sensing data forms the basis of these alarmists
observations and not on the spot research.

Raina told the Hindustan Times that out of 9,575 glaciers in India, till date, research has been conducted only on about 50. Nearly
200 years data has shown that nothing abnormal has occurred in any of these glaciers.

It is simple. The issue of glacial retreat is being sensationalised by a few individuals, the septuagenarian Raina claimed. Throwing a
gauntlet to the alarmist, he said the issue should be debated threadbare before drawing a conclusion.
However, Dr RK Pachouri, Chairman, Inter-Governmental Panel of Climatic Change said it’s recently released fourth assessment
report has recorded increased glacier retreat since the 1980s.

This he said was due to the fact that the carbon dioxide radioactive forcing has increased by 20 per cent particularly after 1995. And
also that 11 of the last 12 years were among the warmest 12 years recorded so far.

Surprisingly, Raina, who has been associated with the research and data collection in over 25 glaciers in India and abroad,
debunked the theory that Gangotri glacier is retreating alarmingly.

Maintaining that the glaciers are undergoing natural changes, witnessed periodically, he said recent studies in the Gangotri and
Zanskar areas (Drung- Drung, Kagriz glaciers) have not shown any evidence of major retreat.
"Claims of global warming causing glacial melt in the Himalayas are based on wrong assumptions," Raina, a trained mountaineer
and skiing expert said. He rued that not much is being done by the Government to create a bank of trained geologists for an in-depth study of glaciers.

The agencies such as the GSI are not getting fresh talent simply because of the measly salaries offered by the Government.
Consider this. During one of his visits to Antarctic, to his utter dismay, Raina discovered that the cook of a Japanese team was
getting a bigger pay packet than him.
If he is to be believed, currently only about a dozen scientists are working on Indian glaciers. More alarming is the fact that some
of them are above 50. How can one talk about the state of glaciers when not much research is being done on the ground, he
wondered. In fact, it is difficult to ascertain the exact state of Himalayan glaciers as these are very dusty as compared to the
ones in Alaska and the Alps. The present presumptions are based on the cosmatic study of the glacier surfaces.

Nobody knows what is happening beneath the glaciers. What ever is being flaunted about the under surface activity of the glaciers,
is merely presumptions, he claimed.
His views were echoed by Dr RK Ganjoo, Director, Regional Centre for Field Operations and Research on Himalayan Glaciology,
who is supervising study of glaciers in Ladakh region including one in the Siachen area. He also maintained that nothing abnormal has
been found in any of the Himalyan glaciers studied so far by him.
Still, he wondered on the Himalayan glaciers being compared with those in Alaska or Europe to lend credence to the melt theory.
Indian glaciers are at 3,500-4,000 meter above the sea level whereas those in the Alps are at much lower levels. Certainly, the conditions under which the glaciers in Alaska are retreating, are not prevailing in the Indian sub-continent, he explained.
Another leading geologist MN Koul of Jammu University, who is actively engaged in studying glacier dynamics in J&K and Himachal
holds similar views. Referring to his research on Kol glacier ( Paddar, J&K) and Naradu (HP), he said both the glaciers have not
changed much in the past two decades.

http://www.agrometeo...=21&tt_news=698
Email Anil Anand: aanand@hindustantimes.com

[biknut]

  For starters please demonstrate how your article correlates with this NASA data that clearly
demonstrates a long term dramatic warming trend?

In the cases of sat data the actual sat data logs is usually available to support or interpret so it follows that we are
better off looking at such data for ourselves than accepting anyone else's interpretation of it as I think all of us are
intelligent enough to draw our own conclusions.

So I ask you again Biknut to please present more data not just other people's interpretations of the data.  More
ocean temps.

I see what you mean. When you google ocean temperatures you see hundreds of stories that tell of dramatic ocean
warming, but very few that mention the actual data shows the oceans have not really been dramatically warming since
1998. The ones that do mention cooling tend to say it's probably glacier melt water. In other words, if the ocean
temperature goes up, it's proof of global warming. If the ocean temperature goes down, it's still proof of global warming.
There's a word that comes to mind for this. Swindle. Humm, yeah I think that seems like a possibility.

HadSST2 Global sea surface temperature anomalies from Rainer et al (2006)

http://www.cru.uea.a...e/hadsst2gl.txt

I did a little editing just to make it easier to read.

1980 -0.025
1981 0.027
1982 0.022
1983 0.116
1984 -0.006
1985 -0.045
1986 -0.020
1987 0.140
1988 0.106
1989 0.060
1990 0.182
1991 0.156
1992 0.056
1993 0.075
1994 0.124
1995 0.181
1996 0.113
1997 0.303
1998 0.451 warmest
1999 0.209
2000 0.219
2001 0.335
2002 0.376
2003 0.406
2004 0.383
2005 0.383
2006 0.340
2007 0.320 so far

Edited by biknut, 16 July 2007 - 05:43 AM.