Turns out there are a few people Al Gore does not want to admit exist.
Maurice Strong... the guy that most of the people buying into the Global Warming Fraud know little about
Global Governance... Carbon Tax Fraud
The world according to Youtube. Yawn
Flat earth thinkers all over again; I assure you, MikeNV, you will not fall over the edge of the earth if you keep saililng east, and Copernicus was right. What part of summer heat drawing huge amounts of water from the seas and that water being turned into freakish snow storms all over the earth, ice bergs melting, and shorelines disappearing in threatened island states? The German newspaper person at the climate change conference really said it all for me when Imahofe started spouting off about climate change being a hoax: "That's riduculous; you're ridiculous.' Did you notice that the bonehead from OK slinked back to OK where he still has some credibility in his own house. What's your problem with clean air and water? Do you have money invested in carbon emissions? By the way: "That's riduculous; you're ridiculous."
"What part of summer heat drawing huge amounts of water from the seas and that water being turned into freakish snow storms all over the earth, ice bergs melting, and shorelines disappearing in threatened island states?"
The part where the IPCC, Gore, Jones or any of the other AGW hoaxsters refuse to respond to the long-standing challenge to prove - scientifically, which can be verified by honest scientists, not one of the gang of "peers" they always employ - that manmade carbon emissions cause, or have any significant effect on 'global warming'.
Every verifiable scientific analysis of co2 shows the OPPOSITE of what the AGW fraudsters claim: higher temps beget higher levels of co2, not the other way around. Archeological evidence all over the world proves this.
But here's another question for a genius like you: Why is Greenland called Greenland? It is a WHITE ice sheet, with small areas of rocky land exposed in the summer. During Erik the Red's time (he who named it Greenland, circa 1100), it WAS a "GREEN" land: lush forests and plains! Look it up, nitwit. Between 800 and 1100 AD the earth's climate was MUCH warmer than it is today. Yet somehow mankind survived! Not only that, it flourished! And what, pray tell, Mr. Einstein, CAUSED the Medieval Warm Period? Medieval SUVs and power plants? Medieval 747s? No, genius, it was NATURAL - like the other THOUSAND times the earth's climate has fluctuated up or down.
THAT part. THAT's the part we don't get, - Einstein!.
ER - I don't want to get in between anyone here and I am not on any particular side yet - I just happen to remember something about the warm between 800 and 1100. Writing from different places in Europe, people wrote about 3 years with no real summer or winter and the sky clouded over. Most populations dwindled and desease was a huge problem, but not a plague. This would indicate a natural event of some kind - maybe - huge or very dusty volcanic activity somewhere putting dust and gas into the upper atmosphere. This was supposed to have been around 600 to 700 if my memory is right.
You've stumbled into something called a "feedback loop," congratulations! Rising temperatures do indeed raise CO2 levels. The earth has something called Milankovich cycles, which are tilts in its axis which cause changes in the climate such as ice ages. When the tilt returns to a warming cycle, CO2 levels rise as the oceans give up their CO2.
What you're overlooking is the fact that the rise in CO2 levels results in additional warming, and it's that amplifying effect that actually brings the world out of the Ice Age.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lag … rature.htm
With the current warming, scientists are concerned that if temperatures rise too much as a result of man-made carbon emissions, the oceans will start outgassing CO2 again (they're currently mainly absorbing it) and dramatically increase the projected warming.
LOL, the Greenland ice sheet has existed for at least 400,000 years, so while a few parts of it may have been greener, most of it has been ice for the entirety of recorded history. Archaeologists and historians actually say that Erik the Red named it "Greenland" more as a marketing ploy than anything else, in an attempt to get more settlers.
The Medieval Warming Period is also somewhat misnamed, since temperatures were warmer only in certain areas and globally temperatures were cooler than the modern world.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieva … period.htm
"LOL"? No, "archaeologists and historians" don't "actually" say that, the Icelandic Sagas - works of fiction and speculative "history" - do. What actual archeaologists who have painstakingly excavated areas of inland Greenland - under the present ice sheet - say is that the shores and most of the southern interior of Greenland were very much green, not ice-covered, during the Medieval Warm Period. Carbon dating of the 6-meter trees, human and livestock bones, and artifacts they found proved this.
As for your repetition of the AGW hoaxters mantra that the MWP was limited to Northern Europe (this claim made after years of pretending the MWP never happened at all, as famously illustrated by Mann's hockey stick graph), you may want to read Phil "Hide the Decline" Jones's interview with the BBC the other day. He himself admits they "may have" deliberately ignored evidence to the contrary, that there isn't evidence that the MWP was limited to Europe.
As for your co2 analysis, I have a simple question: Since manmade co2 emissions have increased exponentially in the past few decades, with China, India and Brazil emitting BILLIONS of tons more co2, why in the world would the earth not only STOP warming - as Big Phil himself states that it did, 15 years ago - but actually have an 11-year COOLING period since 1998? Your little co2 theory - which no doubt has as its original author one of Phil's infamous "peers" - doesn't make sense.
Nobody is disputing that some of the shores of Greenland were green and not ice covered. They're not entirely ice covered now.
Greenland settlers used mainly stone, sod, and driftwood to build their homes. They had to trade with Scandanavia for timber to build their ships. There were boreal-type forests with large trees on Greenland roughly 450,000-800,000 years ago, but that was hundreds of thousands of years before the evolution of modern humans, let alone the Viking culture and Erik the Red.
I did read his interview with the BBC the other day, and he said nothing of the kind. He said that there were very few paleoclimatic records for the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere and "[w]e know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere."
Perhaps you should read the actual interview instead of editorials twisting his words.
He also never said it stopped warming. As I explained to Dewey earlier in this thread, he said that the warming he observed did not meet the scientific standard of 95% statistical certainty, but came very close, which basically means that the warming he observed fell within the statistical margin of error. To use my earlier example, that means that if he observed a warming trend of +0.12 degrees, but the margin of error was 0.13 degrees, the actual temperature change could have been anywhere from -0.1 degrees to +0.25 degrees.
The NASA GISS system's data for the same period, by the way, DOES demonstrate statistically significant warming:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar … ing-pause/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar … ly-mangle/
Oh, and while you're edifying all of us with your superior knowledge, why don't you explain the 27,000+ cold temperature records set in just the past year.
Let's see: manmade carbon emissions cause 'global warming'; these emissions have increased EXPONENTIALLY for over 100 YEARS. Then how is it possible, old sage, that thousands of LOW temp records - many from over 100 years ago - are being broken AFTER more than a century of 'warming'? Can't wait for your answer. Better stretch well before you do answer: the argumentative acrobatics you'll have to engage in to explain this one away are going to have to be spectacular.
Not that your snowfall increase 'explanation' wasn't - it was. Let's see: low snowfall amounts = global warming (as Gore, RFK Jr, Mann have stated in recent years) and now high snowfall = global warming! Can't argue with that brilliant equation! Now, don't forget to give us your high temps = AGW / low temps = AGW equation as well!
First, it's helpful to remember that the USA is not the world, and the eastern USA is not the entire USA. Last year six US states posted their coldest July ever recorded, but globally, it was the second hottest July on record. Likewise, January 2010 saw record snowfall in the east, but over in the Pacific Northwest it was so warm and dry that Vancouver had to truck in snow to get ready for the Olympics. Globally, it was one of the hottest Januaries on record. The reason for much of the weather weirdness has been El Nino. There was also a period of Arctic Oscillation in December '09 that resulted in a cold snap in North American and Eurasia.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate … port_N.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Decembe … spells.htm
http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/05/h … l-warming/
Global warming doesn't negate the existence of seasons, nor does it necessarily overrule other factors driving climate. Its effects will not be uniform across the globe. One thing scientists are concerned about is the Arctic melting disrupting the Gulf Stream, which currently keeps Europe's climate (mostly) pleasant. If that happens, Europe is likely to become significantly colder and drier in response to climate change, even as many other parts of the globe warm. It is expected to result in more extreme weather conditions in general.
Instead of suing him why don't they make their own documentary and lay out all their facts.
Unless of course they first have to sue him to get the money to be able to afford to make their own documentary.
Why not make their own documentary?
The Whole reason of the suit is to present their side of the Story which Team Gore doesn't want exposed to the public.
A lawsuit puts this in the public eye. That's why.
Of course, it's on You Tube so it must be true. The oil companies are going all out...
Global warming is a fraud. The information that is given to the general public is only a very small percentage of the overall info. In other words it is manipulated to create another multi billion dollar industry.
Or it is not a fraud and the oil companies and those with power to lose are perpetrating their own fraud. The ice caps are melting no matter what you think.
More scientists than not believe in it.
you believe this because it is what you have been told? you read? researched? or just CNN?
I don't watch CNN. Have you read and watched everything ever written about the subject?
Couldn't possibly read everything ever written on subject but have read at least a truckload full. and have written papers on it.
Why not publish your papers on HubPages so we can take a look at them? Are you one of Coleman's 30,000 "scientists"? Are your papers high school or grade school papers? :-)
Better yet, put climate change up to a vote at the next Tea Bagger convention. That'd settle it.
As those in the religion forums will tell you, belief is not proof
And what is your source, Faux News? People like you abet the polluters to make money at the expense of the rest of us. If you are so well informed, you should probably know what people who are too irresponsible to clean up after themselves did in Bopal (sp) India. People are still dyling from that clusterf...k." Obama nationality deniers, global warming deniers: you are the worst polluters around because you pollute public discourse which is the only place left for ordinary, concerned citizens to try to find a solution to world problems. Keep up, Grandpa, or shut up.
The only public discourse 'pollution' happening in this country and around the world are people like you who want to STOP all discourse on the subject of global warming and accept the FAO and the IPCC scientific data, accept their proposed 'mitigation' policies, without any review or exploration of its validity.........but more importantly, to my mind, blind acceptance without understanding their underlying motivation of creating a socialized world, where under the bogus notion that a cow is causing global warming all cow production must be guided by 'institutions' in the future.
This predates Obama, he is merely a tool, the current US tool. If you don't want the EPA becoming an arm of government that is more frightening than the IRS, everyone should call or write their Congressman and express their disapproval of putting 'new' authority in the hands of the EPA.
And they drove SUVs! That's the real cause of the not-really-warming Global warming!
I heard Cow Farts were a BIG factor in Global warming!
Dinosaur Farts must be HUGE!
Now we know why they are extinct!
They FARTED themselves to death!
People Farts are Tiny in comparison....
Maybe we should have Fart Police!
That makes as much sense as the Global Warming for dollars Scam!
The alarmists say that human CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming, and that these emissions will have catastrophic impacts on the Earth unless we act now. This is the issue and this is where the scam lies, because this is simply not true..
The "fact", in fact, is that over 31'000 scientists including over 9'000 Phd's (that's 15-times more than are seriously involved in the United Nations IPCC process), say that:
"there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate".
I suppose you could call that a concensus.
http://www.petitionproject.org/frequent … stions.php
This is good stuff. And a wonderful thread.
Wonder how things will pan out in a few years. Will people begin to think or simply follow prime time news?
Sannyasinman...........the fact is humans consume all the carbon stock of every grain, vegetable, or meat produced on this planet. Rather than tax the producer of the meat or grain or vegetable, it is the human consumer that would be more appropriately taxed. Cities are the greatest consumers of carbon stock, and they should give that carbon stock back to the rural societies that created their food -- instead their waste is put in 'hazardous' landfills or washed out to sea. The pollution of our oceans from human waste is a far greater problem than climate change from the belching or farting of a cow.
John Coleman taking on Al Gore is analogous to an ant crawling up an elephant's leg bent on rape!
Yes, excellent analogy! Al Gore has such a mammoth intellect to impress someone of such high standing in society as yourself.
I especially admire Gore's unimpeachable expertise on 'global warming' and science in general. Where do we begin? Let's start with his most recent nugget of scientific knowledge we mere mortals were so ignorant of:
"two kilometers or so down in most places [on earth] there are these incredibly hot rocks, 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees" 12 Nov 2009
Hmm. Funny how the miners in all the mines 2km or deeper didn't burn up (some mines are close to 4km deep). MILLIONS of degrees? The surface of the SUN ITSELF is 7,000 degrees. The earth's molten core is 5,000.
Yeah, Gore is an elephant's ass alright. Horse's ass just doesn't adequately describe this nitwit. Thank's for bringing the subject up. At least we should thank Gore for even being able to make these postings; he did, after all, invent the internet.
Please! Anybody who sues anyone over global warming has to be a complete idiot, or have a really high paid lawyer who will do anything for money.
How can you sue anyone over a theory on something if nobody knows that it really exists? Global Warming is a just a theory on paper. Scientists think they have evidence that proves this theory 100 percent, based on ducumented tests and more theory.
Humans have only been on this planet for a few thousand years, and only smart enough to extract facts on are planet for a few hundred, through navigation, and exploration. If the earth has been around for a billions of years, how can these people claim that they know anything about it.
People used to believe harcore that the earth was flat. Well, once they discovered navigation, they found out they were wrong.
There are just too many things about our planet, and it's past to believe any of this bull.
But, i'm sure somebody is waiting in the wings to put out a book about it. And, somebody will buy it, and believe it. Not me. It's all just self motivated garbage.
Any psychologist or body language expert around to give a view on this?-Gore on TV interview-looks shifty to me.
He is plugging his movie and his book with well rehearsed content, expressions and hand gestures. He is hiding his arrogance by telling us, with a condescending smile, that (thanks to him) we can stop Greenland and Antarctica melting .
Climate change, yes but there has always been climate change without people like Al Gore making millions out of it.
Come on, witch hunting, the cold war, with the nuclear threat, then came aids, now it's global warming. Convenient scaremongering has always been practiced by ailing and failing rulers.
And yes, we know that the earth isn't flat., and so do the 30,000 scientists and 9,000 phd's who are demanding an honest debate.
All the things that you mentioned are shoved at polititians by doctors and Scientists for the sole purpose of creating a public interest or fear to gain capital to fund their programs. There are so many stupid studies out there that are receiving millions of dollars of our taxes, that are plugged by politians, that most people would be shocked we are still paying for.
One of the biggest lies continues to be Iraq, and all the weapons of mass destruction that were never found. And, now they are trying to pull the same BS on Iran. Everyone knows this is a war over oil, and nothing else.
And, the whole global warming thing is a smoke screen to get polititians to push alternative feuls, and boost the companies that might produce them, so that we do not constantly have to fight these countries to get what we want. And the american companies that produce these new feuls will benefit.
You can bet the American oil companies are secretly investing in these
searches for new kinds of feul, and, will probably have a monopoly on it in the future. Something that the average tax payer can do little or nothing about. They will probably gouge the crap out of us when that arrives as well. It's all about profits, and nothing else.
I have to say, 39 climatologists and 112 atmospheric scientists out of more than 30,000 scientists is not a very impressive ratio.
Almost a third of these distinguished signatories are engineers, who may indeed be scientists but are hardly qualified to judge the accuracy of climate science, and the biggest single group of earth scientists signing the petition (more than three times the next closest number) are geologists, a high percentage of whom work for oil and gas companies.
Source: http://www.petitionproject.org/qualific … igners.php
If Al Gore is so confident in his belief that humans are the cause of global warming, then why does he refuse to debate the subject with those of a differing opinion?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp … hn-stossel
If humans are the source of global warming then why are ice caps melting on Mars?
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003 … thpole.htm
One more link. This one is very detailed and reports of a 40,000 year cycle of weather change on this planet. Very interesting stuff. Just wondering if Al Gore would want to deny me the right to read it, climate change is settled science after all.
Scientific theories are always considered to be “works in
progress.” No scientist worth his/her salt is ever going to say, “This is a FACT” to be carved in stone forever.
Did you actually read the article? It specifically says that the melting ice cap is a seasonal one and that Mars (at the time of the article) was entering spring and experiencing warmer weather as a result. Hardly proof of long-term Martian global warming!
More on Mars's supposed "global warming": http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- … n-mars.htm
Again, did you actually read the article? It says, "Our current situation was altogether different. The warming was not started by a small shift of sunlight, as in previous epochs. Our addition of gases to the atmosphere was initiating the process, with the temperature rise lagging behind the rise of gas levels. Moreover, our emissions were climbing at a far swifter rate, and had already reached a far higher level, than anything in the Pleistocene record. [...] By the start of the 21st century, it was clear that the connection between global temperature and greenhouse gas levels was a major geological force."
Regardless, the only thing that previous changes to the Earth's climate prove is that Earth does not have a steady-state climate. Nobody with any credibility whatsoever has ever claimed it did.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate … period.htm
In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … rming.html
Yes I read the article. I wonder though why don't you address the point I made about Al Gore refusing to debate the subject?
Also did you bother to read the third link showing the 40,000 year cycles of climate on Earth?
I am open to discussion on the matter. Are you?
No thoughtful person is denying climate cycles. There is no conflict between climate cycles and anthropomorphic effects. They both affect the world climate. Why is that so hard for you deniers to comprehend?
The timing and extent of the effect of CO2 is not certain but the direction of the change has been measured scientifically.
The fact that I raise points that question the "settled science" makes me a denier? Once again....why won't Al Gore debate the subject.
Mr. Gore is someone only a liberal could regard as an expert on climate change. He took exactly two science courses as an undergraduate at Yale, scoring a D in Natural Sciences 6, and a C in Natural Sciences 118
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Mo … e10866.htm
http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/7390 … adcrut.jpg
I haven't seen anybody on this thread but you imply he should be regarded as such. Why is it so important to you that a non-scientist debate science with a fellow non-scientist? What on earth can it possibly prove, besides the fact that both of them can regurgitate the facts that support their own point of view?
I didn't address the point about Gore because I couldn't care less what Gore does or does not do. He's not a climatologist, just an interested layman.
Switch over to chronological for a moment and you will see that I did read the third link and the third link is what I was quoting from. As you can see, it not only doesn't refute the existence of Anthropogenic Global Warming, it actually confirms it, which is why it baffles me that you would use that article as an attempt to claim that AGW is false. Your own evidence contradicts your claim!
Re: the Mars thing, again, reading the whole article is helpful. The second page points out that Mars is currently experiencing its own equivalent of Earth's Milankovitch cycles, and the majority of scientists believe that these are what are causing the changes in ice caps.
Kerry G writes: it actually confirms it, which is why it baffles me that you would use that article as an attempt to claim that AGW is false. Your own evidence contradicts your claim!
I never said that global warming is false. I question the settled science.
I read information from both sides and don't rush to judgement. On the other hand I see the "Non-Deniers?" rushing to judgement and trying to shout down any dissenting opinion. Why is that?
So what is "the settled science" in your view? The article you cited states explicitly that the earth is currently warming and the warming is caused by man's activities. Do you agree with that statement?
I, too, read information from both sides and try to maintain a balanced point of view. The trouble is, AGW deniers almost universally display profound ignorance of basic scientific principles, and/or propagate misinformation and outright lies. It is ignorance, lies, and deliberate misinformation I attempt to shout down, not serious, scientifically based skepticism.
Kerryg writes: Almost a third of these distinguished signatories are engineers, who may indeed be scientists but are hardly qualified to judge the accuracy of climate science, and the biggest single group of earth scientists signing the petition (more than three times the next closest number) are geologists, a high percentage of whom work for oil and gas companies. Dewey writes:(only people who agree with your point of view would be qualified correct?)
The last statement you make about working for oil companies says it all.
I posted nothing containing misinformation. Did you miss the part in my post that spoke of the Martian ice caps melting more each year for at least 3 years in a row? That was not part of the summer/spring melting that you are trying to twist to meet your agenda.
Lets just presume what you believe to be true. Just wondering how long is it that you perceive global warming to having been occurring? Is it 100 years? 100 years in the history of this planet can be compared to me sneezing. I am not a person who is an alarmist and you are. CO2 levels have been much higher in the history of this planet. Did man cause it then too? You try to maintan a balanced point of view? Your hubs indicate otherwise.
I do find your hubs interesting. So much so, that I became a fan.
Have a great day!
Dewey writes:(only people who agree with your point of view would be qualified correct?)
Kerry writes: No, I don't dispute the qualifications of the 39 climatologists they've found to sign the petition, simply pointed out that 39 is a pretty minuscule and unimpressive percentage of working climatologists around the world. Asking an engineer to judge the science of climate change, on the other hand, is like asking a dentist to deliver a baby. There is some vague overlap in the fields, but not enough that I would be comfortable turning myself over to a dentist in labor! Geologists are little better, and geologists working for oil and gas companies have a financial interest in discrediting the theory of anthropogenic climate change, so while I might listen to what they have to say, I am going to take their words with the same grain of salt I take with Al Gore's. (A very big grain of salt, I might add. I like Gore in general, but I strongly oppose cap and trade.)
Dewey writes: I posted nothing containing misinformation. Did you miss the part in my post that spoke of the Martian ice caps melting more each year for at least 3 years in a row? That was not part of the summer/spring melting that you are trying to twist to meet your agenda.
Kerry writes: Not outright lies, no, but you either read the articles you posted poorly, or were deliberately misleading about their content. You posted the first article about Mars (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003 … thpole.htm) with the implication that it somehow called the "settled science" of AGW into question, without acknowledging that the article specifically states that the melting ice cap was seasonal and Mars was entering its spring season.
You posted the second article about Mars (yes, I read it, and addressed it earlier in thispost) with the same implication, yet again failed to acknowledge that it discussed the opinion of one scientist whose views are not widely respected among his peers. Could this be because of some global conspiracy to discredit deniers? Sure. But it is equally plausible that the alternate explanation given in the article (the fact that Mars is currently undergoing its equivalent of Earth's Milankovich cycles - which you also failed to mention in your posts) is the more plausible explanation based on the current evidence. I'd need much more than the opinion of one scientist to consider the article damning evidence against AGW. You also completely failed to acknowledge an article I provided for you presenting yet a third factor in Mars's climate: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- … n-mars.htm
Finally, you implied the article on climate cycles (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm) also called the "settled science" into question, when in fact it explicitly states that the Earth IS warming and man's activities ARE the cause of the current warming.
Like I said, either you did a very poor job of reading the articles, or you were deliberately misleading about their content, and hoped nobody would actually read them in order to call you on it. Unfortunately, I did.
Dewey said: Lets just presume what you believe to be true. Just wondering how long is it that you perceive global warming to having been occurring? Is it 100 years? 100 years in the history of this planet can be compared to me sneezing. I am not a person who is an alarmist and you are. CO2 levels have been much higher in the history of this planet. Did man cause it then too?
Kerry says: At the present time, my understanding of the science is that man-made causes of climate change overtook natural ones in importance in the mid-1970's.
You are completely correct that 35 years is a minuscule period of time on a geologic scale. You can go back through my previous posts here and on many other threads and I don't believe you will ever find me arguing that anthropogenic climate change will in any way damage the long term survival of the planet. The Earth will survive anything we throw at her and be around for billions of years to come.
My concern is entirely for the human race and the other species we currently share the planet with. Believe it or not, I am rather fond of us, and I would like us to be around for a good long while to come. Climate change will make life significantly more difficult for us and many of the other species who share the planet for us.
You say CO2 levels have been higher in the past and it's true, but if you read more deeply, you'll find that the most recent of those periods was the Middle Miocene, roughly 15 million years ago, when the high CO2 levels were probably caused by volcanic activity. During the Middle Miocene, global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic, and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland. As many as 30% of the planet's mammal species went extinct. Does that sound like a world you'd like your grand children and great-grandchildren to live in?
Kerry writes: without acknowledging that the article specifically states that the melting ice cap was seasonal and Mars was entering its spring season
The article also states that the Martian Ice caps had been shrinking more each year. You still dont address that fact.
Your detailed repsonses are appreciated. More than I get when I post differences of opinions on other sites.
I would like to point out one more thing. In the past posts from you, you claim distortions of truth or outright lies. I have been watching the main stream media lately. Not one mention of the distortion of data currently under investigation. Why do the findings of possible tampering of the forecasting models fail to get the press it deserves?
Like I said... I have no problem listening to both sides and learning for myself. You obviously have been reading much more than me on the subject. I like to play devils advocate. Obviously this is a topic to which you have strong beliefs. Beliefs which I believe may hinder your acceptance of differing points of view.
supposedly that data was all lost when they relocated or cleaned their laboratory. that just sounds really odd...
Dewey says: The article also states that the Martian Ice caps had been shrinking more each year. You still dont address that fact.
Kerry says: The first article you posted (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003 … thpole.htm) says absolutely nothing of the kind. The SECOND article you posted does (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … rming.html) and I have now addressed the problems with it twice.
Three times the charm?
* The article covers the opinion of one scientist whose findings are disputed by his peers.
* The article states that Mars is currently undergoing its equivalent of Earth's Milankovich cycles and that's why the majority of scientists believe it's undergoing changes in climate.
* I need more than the opinion of one scientist to convince me that the situation on Mars is damning evidence against AGW.
Dewey says: Not one mention of the distortion of data currently under investigation. Why do the findings of possible tampering of the forecasting models fail to get the press it deserves?
Kerry says: Which particular scandal are you referring to here? There have been a couple lately that have been pounced on by deniers. They've both been fairly remarkable for how non-damning they actually were, but it is entirely possible I've missed something.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … /comments/
Of course this is the Washington Times so the source will need to be ridiculed.
Scientist admits there has been no global warming since 1995
http://dailycaller.com/2010/02/14/scien … ince-1995/
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
Haha, I was thinking about using the Jones case as an example for something yesterday, but didn't because I'm already verbose enough.
The fuss about his statement arises from a misunderstanding of what "statistically significant" means to scientists.
Here is what he actually said:
BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
Phil Jones: I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
Jones was making two points. First, that the temperature record has a lot of short term variability, making it hard to project long term trends based on it. Second, that the warming trend he observed did not meet the preferred 95% significance level, but came very close. That means that the observable data was within the margin of error.
So, for example, if he observed a warming trend of +0.12 degrees, but the margin of error was 0.13 degrees, the actual temperature change could have been anywhere from -0.1 degrees to +0.25 degrees.
It's also worth noting that NASA's data for the same period does demonstrate a statistically significant warming phase:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar … ing-pause/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar … ly-mangle/
Finally, there is some evidence that the so-called Medieval Warming Period was actually a fairly localized phenomenon (which I discuss in a response to someone else above), and even if it was global, the fact that the climate has changed naturally in the past (which NO reputable climatologists dispute) does not negate the possibility that the current changes are caused by human activity. That's like saying because the sun has provided light to the Earth throughout its history, lightbulbs can't exist.
Thank you Kerry, it was very nice of you. Love you, too
Okay here’s the plan, since the latest news as mentioned above blames human breathing as a major contributor to Global warming in addition to mammalian methane.
The Global Warming storm trooping nazi’s can order each person to hold their breath for one day. While they are doing this, and since they are holding their breath anyway, they can run around pop corks in the ( ! )’s of all the cows and we kill two birds with one stone.
The next day, that day’s group runs around while holding their breath, pulls the corks and collects the gas, third problem solved because we can put those evil oil companies out of business.
For those of you that can’t hold you breath that long, don’t worry, we will kindly do it for you. Please place the sterile anti-breathing apparatus over you face and walk through the door.
Problem solved, less mouth breathers on the planet to worry about, damn pesky humans having been dirtying up the place anyway.
The Polar Bears
For me there is no doubt in my mind that we need to be better caretakers of our earth and keep it clean and healthy. But I just don't believe that we have much power over global warming. I do believe we have been hoodwinked to an extent and it annoys the heck out of me. For example, the whole plasic bag fiasco. In my opinion, some genius is cleaning house because he preyed on our 'go green' consciences and has convinced the world not to use plastic bags but instead, spend a dollar and buy reusable bags. now that I don't have grocery bags, I have to buy garbage bags, so what is the point of that? hoodwinked for sure.
The poles are melting, as documented. Exactly why seems to be very hot topic. Since there seems to be an inordinate amount of building evidence against the Al Gore version of Global Warming, it appears that the real reason is yet to be "discovered."
I don't know that most rational people are in denial that the poles are changing. It seems plainly evident to me, but really, with so much evidence showing that the *original* reason given for global warming is a hoax, doesn't mean that it isn't happening, it just means that no one can yet explain it.
Why is that so hard to understand?
i know people who have lived in Alaska for years; hiked it, etc. and they say they have noticed even glacial ice melting where before, it had not for generations. i know Earth has its cycles and weather patterns, but i also know that Man affects the planet's climate. how could he not?
OMG, I just heard that 50 000 chickens are suing Mickey Mouse for sexual harassment. Clearly this is true, because, well, 50 000 is a very large number... I mean its bigness just speaks for itself. And, get this... I heard it on YOUTUBE. So it must be true.
(On another note, I find it hard to believe that there are 30 000 climate scientists on EARTH, but maybe this small detail is not so important...)
That's part of the point.
Only 39 of them are actually climatologists!
I'm not sure what Mickey did to those chickens but someone needs to investigate Gonzo (from the Muppets) involvement with poultry, something very suspicious is happening there if you ask me.
which begs the question, why do we need 30,000 climate scientists?
How many climate scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
It's irrelevant, now Walmart's on board, we will all have to follow suit
i just know this is going to hit me later and i'm going to go "oh yeah...hahahah!!!"
Apparently walmart decided it would only sell green light bulbs. It told its main supplier GE this. GE said "we need time to retool". Walmart said "Sorry, we're doing this now. Shape up now, or ship out. We'll find another supplier."
The point of the story (if true) is to illustrate Walmart's power: GE is (almost) the largest corporation in the world...
...Of course it comes second, behind... Walmart
How many climate scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
Depends on wether its an incandscent bulb or one of thos new fangled bulbs that has mercury in it.
Well, if you ask me the most comprehensive discussion of this topic on HP happened like a year ago - http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/9928 . Since then nobody came close
Bloody hell, Misha - that was a piece of ancient history. The good old days!
I enjoyed re-reading through that one - some of the posts were in danger of making sense
Yeah, that is not a term you hear that much anymore. However, better conservation, than not too. That's my feeling. In that regard, Al Gore has done a bang up job at making people realize, that we do need to take care of our planet. Anyhow- it just makes sense. He was the one smart enough to capitalize on the opportunity. I'm just pissed off that I didn't. It was any bodies opportunity. As you stated Cosette, they were preaching this stuff back in the eighties.
What he has done, cannot be entirely disproved or proved. So it is a wasted lawsuit, or whatever. It is exactly what people like myself would not want. More paper products for the shredder, that could have been conserved and saved. More waste, waste, waste.
Personally, I'm still awaiting our impending demise from that killer from the skies, ACID RAIN.
The MSM (ABC, CBS, NBC, NY Times) all assured us in the 80s that we would soon have to live in bubble cities because air pollution was making the earth's water supply acidic. BILLIONS were needed to be spent right away to stop this impending disaster. Back then, it wasn't Himilayan glaciers and polar bears at risk, it was lakes and fish. I remember one network doing an on-location story about a lake in upstate NY, certified by the 'experts' as the best example of the horrors of acid rain: no fish because of an incredibly high acidity level. PROOF POSITIVE of the danger of acid rain!
Today, few people even remember the term 'acid rain'. Something that was a clear and present threat to man's life on earth, with the MSM and 'environmentalists' screaming from the rooftops about it, then it vanished. Why? Because the NITWITS making the claims had no idea as to what they were talking about: the acidity was NATURAL - from NATURE - not from Man. That lake in NY? ALL of the acidity was from natural rock and soil content in the area.
This global warming HOAX will have the same conclusion: 99.98% Nature, .02% Man.
For all you AGW fans out there disputing this, I have one question: Why is Greenland called Greenland? It is a WHITE ice sheet, with small areas of rocky land exposed in the summer. During Erik the Red's time (he who named it Greenland, circa 1100), it WAS a "GREEN" land: lush forests and plains! Look it up, nitwits. Between 800 and 1200 AD the earth's climate was MUCH warmer than it is today. Yet somehow mankind survived! Not only that, it flourished! And what, pray tell, geniuses, CAUSED the Medieval Warm Period? Medieval SUVs and power plants? Medieval factories and 747s flying overhead? No, geniuses, it was NATURAL - like the other THOUSAND times the earth's climate has fluctuated up or down.
Might want to update your info on acid rain:
Thanks for the laugh. Why don't I instead update my info on Adolf Hitler and the Nazis by going to the biggest neonazi organization's website? They probably have less disinformation than the EPA does. That's the most ridiculous comeback I've seen on these boards: "see, the EPA still clings to the acid rain hoax that the EPA itself was instrumental in perpetrating!"
What do you give people who argue against the absurdity of Holocaust denial? A link to holocaustneverhappened.org to "prove" your point? Please.
You obviously missed the memo on Godwin's Law, but leaving that aside for the moment, it hasn't occurred to you that maybe acid rain is no longer a serious problem in most regions because we did act (relatively) swiftly to counter it with scrubbers and catalytic converters?
No, that hadn't occurred to me at all. Reason? I was there when THAT hoax came to a crashing, ignominious halt. I saw it with my own eyes and I was very involved with the subject at the time.
I could sit here for an hour explaining why you are wrong but I have a better idea: It is an extremely rare occasion that that bastion of liberal bias, '60 Minutes', will expose a scam close to the hearts of liberals. And acid rain was very much to liberal propagandists then what AGW is to them today. 60 Minutes didn't criticize 'acid rain', it totally debunked it, wiped it off the political radar of the times. The very title said it all: 'THE ACID RAIN HOAX'. Others in the MSM, who ignored the science that PROVED acid rain was natural and instead relentlessly hyped the 'crisis' for ten years, suddenly dropped the subject. In the aftermath of the exposé, the 'acid rainers' crawled under their academic rocks and disappeared. THAT is what happened to acid rain; save your idiotic EPA propaganda about 'catalytic converters' for those that don't know any better. The end of the Acid Rain Hoax had nothing to do with 'fixes' of a nonexistent problem; it died an instant death, on Dec. 30, 1990, the night 60 Minutes killed it.
High school students a hundred years from now will not only read about the Acid Rain Hoax of the 1980s but that entry will be dwarfed by that of 'The Global Warming Hoax of the Early 21st Century'.
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps you should know what you're talking about when you 'correct' others?
I would much prefer you sit there and explain to me why it's a hoax. I've never watched 60 Minutes in my life - I'm not going to automatically concede the point just because a supposed liberal media source ran a story questioning it, certainly not without the opportunity to watch the clip or read a transcript myself.
Meanwhile, what is your explanation for the recovery of lakes in the UK and the Sudbury region of Canada following reductions in emissions of sulfur dioxide and other pollutants believed to cause acid rain? Coincidence?
Acid rain is rain or any other form of precipitation that is unusually acidic, i.e. elevated levels of hydrogen ions (low pH). It has harmful effects on plants, aquatic animals, and infrastructure through the process of wet deposition. Acid rain is caused by emissions of compounds of ammonium, carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur which react with the water molecules in the atmosphere to produce acids. Governments have made efforts since the 1970's to reduce the production of sulfuric oxides into the Earth's atmosphere with positive results. However, it can also be caused naturally by the splitting of nitrogen compounds by the energy produced by lightning strikes, or the release of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere by phenomena of volcano eruptions.
Since the Industrial Revolution, emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides to the atmosphere have increased. In 1852, Robert Angus Smith was the first to show the relationship between acid rain and atmospheric pollution in Manchester, England. Though acidic rain was discovered in 1852, it was not until the late 1960s that scientists began widely observing and studying the phenomenon. The term "acid rain" was generated in 1972. Canadian Harold Harvey was among the first to research a "dead" lake. Public awareness of acid rain in the U.S increased in the 1970s after the New York Times promulgated reports from the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest in New Hampshire of the myriad deleterious environmental effects demonstrated to result from it.
Occasional pH readings in rain and fog water of well below 2.4 have been reported in industrialized areas. Industrial acid rain is a substantial problem in Europe, China, Russia and areas down-wind from them. These areas all burn sulfur-containing coal to generate heat and electricity. The problem of acid rain not only has increased with population and industrial growth, but has become more widespread. The use of tall smokestacks to reduce local pollution has contributed to the spread of acid rain by releasing gases into regional atmospheric circulation. Often deposition occurs a considerable distance downwind of the emissions, with mountainous regions tending to receive the greatest deposition (simply because of their higher rainfall). An example of this effect is the low pH of rain (compared to the local emissions) which falls in Scandinavia.
History of acid rain in the United States
In 1980, the U.S. Congress passed an Acid Deposition Act. This Act established a 10-year research program under the direction of the National Acidic Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP). NAPAP looked at the entire problem. It enlarged a network of monitoring sites to determine how acidic the precipitation actually was, and to determine long term trends, and established a network for dry deposition. It looked at the effects of acid rain and funded research on the effects of acid precipitation on freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems, historical buildings, monuments, and building materials. It also funded extensive studies on atmospheric processes and potential control programs.
Since 1998, Harvard University wraps some of the bronze and marble statues on its campus, such as this tortoise-borne "Chinese stele", with waterproof covers every winter, in order to protect them from erosion caused by acid rain (or, actually, acid snow)
In 1991, NAPAP provided its first assessment of acid rain in the United States. It reported that 5% of New England Lakes were acidic, with sulfates being the most common problem. They noted that 2% of the lakes could no longer support Brook Trout, and 6% of the lakes were unsuitable for the survival of many species of minnow. Subsequent Reports to Congress have documented chemical changes in soil and freshwater ecosystems, nitrogen saturation, decreases in amounts of nutrients in soil, episodic acidification, regional haze, and damage to historical monuments.
Meanwhile, in 1990, the US Congress passed a series of amendments to the Clean Air Act. Title IV of these amendments established the Acid Rain Program, a cap and trade system designed to control emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Title IV called for a total reduction of about 10 million tons of SO2 emissions from power plants. It was implemented in two phases. Phase I began in 1995, and limited sulfur dioxide emissions from 110 of the largest power plants to a combined total of 8.7 million tons of sulfur dioxide. One power plant in New England (Merrimack) was in Phase I. Four other plants (Newington, Mount Tom, Brayton Point, and Salem Harbor) were added under other provisions of the program. Phase II began in 2000, and affects most of the power plants in the country.
During the 1990s, research has continued. On March 10, 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). This rule provides states with a solution to the problem of power plant pollution that drifts from one state to another. CAIR will permanently cap emissions of SO2 and NOx in the eastern United States. When fully implemented, CAIR will reduce SO2 emissions in 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia by over 70 percent and NOx emissions by over 60 percent from 2003 levels.
Overall, the Program's cap and trade program has been successful in achieving its goals. Since the 1990s, SO2 emissions have dropped 40%, and according to the Pacific Research Institute, acid rain levels have dropped 65% since 1976. However, this was significantly less successful than conventional regulation in the European Union, which saw a decrease of over 70% in SO2 emissions during the same time period.
In 2007, total SO2 emissions were 8.9 million tons, achieving the program's long term goal ahead of the 2010 statutory deadline.
The EPA estimates that by 2010, the overall costs of complying with the program for businesses and consumers will be $1 billion to $2 billion a year, only one fourth of what was originally predicted.
This may be the hoax the lad is referring to:
Ralph, Wikipedia is ebil librul propaganda, didn't you know?
Curiously, the Conservapedia page on acid rain doesn't question its existence. They should probably get on that. Wouldn't want to lose their Tea Bagger cred!
While I am not an expert at copying and pasting after Googling a subject, then pretending to be an expert from what I've pasted, I'll try my hand at it now, since you two are so keen on the process (unlike the two of you, I don't live on this website pontificating upon everythiing under the sun; I merely visit and comment on the AGW hoax and, a lesser but related subject, the Acid Rain Hoax).
That was some clever pasting about NPAP there, Sparky. Too bad Wikipedia can only display so much on the history of a subject; if it was unlimited, perhaps they would have included what the two head officers of NPAP had to say about their final findings - the findings of a $550 million governmental study, the most expensive government-funded scientific study in history. What do you two "experts" suppose THEY said about 'acid rain' - 550 million dollars later?
Let's try the old copy-and-paste, shall we:
The NAPAP (National Acid Rain Precipitation Assessment Project) study published in 1989 — which took ten years and cost $500 million, the most comprehensive federal study ever undertaken — proved that acid rain was a minor nuisance and that passing expensive regulation would do little to address the supposed problem.
“(NAPAP chief scientist Ed) Krug and then-NAPAP director James Mahoney explained and defended the project’s conclusions,” reported Reason. “Both argued that acid rain is not a crisis. On acid lakes, (60 Minutes reporter) Kroft repeated NAPAP’s belief that acid rain contributes to acidity of only ‘about 2 percent of the surface water in the Adirondacks [the most heavily impacted area of acid rain, according to the EPA].’”
Asked about a New York Times story that claimed acid rain had turned forests in Appalachia into “ragged landscapes of dead and dying trees,” Krug told 60 Minutes, “I don’t know where they got that from. It appears to be another assertion, unsubstantiated.”
Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz also got wind of the NAPAP cover-up after the fact. Trying to explain why environmental reporters had ignored the scientific evidence that would have precluded $4 billion a year in regulatory compliance, he wrote: “Some reporters say privately that it is difficult to write stories that debunk the conventional wisdom of environmental activists, whom the press treats more deferentially than industry spokesmen and other lobbyists.”
Hmm. Now, 20 years later, we have the Great Deeds and kerryg - FAR more qualified to edify us on acid rain than the two men who spent ten years of their lives and $550 million in research on the subject - stating that Krug and Mahoney have it all wrong. "No, the great Wikipedia says..." "No, 60 Minutes covered the story and I would NEVER lower myself to take seriously anything THEY say..." Yeah, I guess I stand corrected.
You see, Deeds, if you actually KNEW this subject, you wouldn't have pasted what you did: not only do the NPAP paragraphs you pasted actually diminish your premise (given what NPAP's actual findings were) but you would have also known that the paragraphs touting the 'great' multi-billion $ programs to 'fight' acid rain were - as liberal Howard Kurtz himself acknowledges above - were a scam which passed Congress solely because of the cover-up of the true NPAP findings.
As bad as Krug and Mahoney were to the acid rain alarmists, Mahoney's predecessor, Dr. Kulp, was actually FIRED by Congressional zealots who hated his interim report when the NPAP study was half done. Kulp said - at the $300 million mark - don't waste any more money on this, we have found negligible impact of manmade acidity on the environment. Ooh, the boys at the EPA didn't like that. So, fire that guy and spend ANOTHER $250 million. Same answer from Mahoney and Krug. Then the cover-up. Then 60 Minutes uncovers the truth and - POOF - the great acid rain hoax is over.
Most of the Wikipedia entry you copied is directly from the EPA! The very same dishonest propagandists who fuled the whole acid rain hoax to begin with! Your fellow sage there, kerryg, even offers LINKS to the EPA website itself, in the ridiculous belief that what they say 'rebuts' the findings of NPAP and others! What the Hadley CRU is to the AGW hoax, the EPA is to the Acid Rain Hoax: they were instrumental in its success.
Anyway, this is getting tedious. As one who respects actual wisdom and knowledge, not 'pretend' knowlege gleaned from Googling, I think I'll leave you two to your insipid, spurious pontificating, oh omniscient ones.
I've read about the NAPAP report, but it was published more than 20 years ago. The fact that we haven't had more serious problems certainly could indicate that it was never as serious a problem as scientists feared, but it could also indicate that the efforts to mitigate its effects were successful, or a combination of both. The latest evidence really seems to be inconclusive to me - too inconclusive to state definitely whether or not the problem was overblown - given that lakes in some regions have continued to acidify, while in others they have shown distinct signs of recovery since the emissions controls were put in place. Combined with other phenomena such as tree deaths in the Adirondacks and "aquatic osteoporosis" in Canadian lakes, it's suspicious, is all I'm saying. What alternative explanation are you proposing?
Kerry, if you did read the NPAP report and know the history of NPAP, the project, its cost, the interim findings (the most important part of NPAP, since Congressional/EPA zealots fired Dr. Kulp, the director of NPAP, when he reported - at the $300 million mark - that further research was unwarranted as they had found there was negligible acidity attributable to man), and especially how and why the final report was covered up (hence the later investigation by 60 Minutes), there shouldn't be a question in your mind. There are geographic anomolies everywhere with regard to acidity; I distinctly remember certain lakes in New York which were held up as examples of the terrible consequences of acid rain which were later exposed as being naturally high in acidity due to surrounding rock and soil composition. The water in rivers and lakes has myriad compositions, depending on a number of factors: the essential untruth of acid rain alarmism is that pH digressions from the norm of 5.6 is attributable to man.
I would say that, based on NPAP, man does contribute a bit to the acidity but it is almost negligible; and, despite NPAP being 20 years old, the actual research was conducted at a time when US air pollution was at its worst. At least we know man's impact, whatever it is, is even lower now than it was then. As you point out, it is difficult to ascertain exactly what has gone on with acidity in recent years. My personal theory is that underground water - where the majority of water actually is, on the continent - is relatively unexplored (underground rivers, water tables, etc.) and since this water contributes greatly to rivers and lakes and passes through so much earth before reaching a lake or river, that perhaps the composition of the water's path may account for differences in pH, just as the surrounding rock and soil has been shown to be.
Thank you for the serious answer.
For the future reference of yourself (and anyone else reading this thread), presenting facts, sources, and reasonable alternative scenarios (that can't be disproved with a simple Google search) is the best way to get me to shut up and stop arguing with you. I love a good debate, love to do research, and suffer a bit too much from this condition for my own good, but I'm not an expert, just an interested layperson, and I am capable of recognizing my own limitations. Making it too easy for me, on the other hand, will just keep me going forever.
Here's a link to an article entitled: IPCC Errors, Facts and Spin
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar … -and-spin/
Errors in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)
As far as we’re aware, so far only one–or at most two–legitimate errors have been found in the AR4:
Himalayan glaciers: In a regional chapter on Asia in Volume 2, written by authors from the region, it was erroneously stated that 80% of Himalayan glacier area would very likely be gone by 2035. This is of course not the proper IPCC projection of future glacier decline, which is found in Volume 1 of the report. There we find a 45-page, perfectly valid chapter on glaciers, snow and ice (Chapter 4), with the authors including leading glacier experts (such as our colleague Georg Kaser from Austria, who first discovered the Himalaya error in the WG2 report). There are also several pages on future glacier decline in Chapter 10 (“Global Climate Projections”), where the proper projections are used e.g. to estimate future sea level rise. So the problem here is not that the IPCC’s glacier experts made an incorrect prediction. The problem is that a WG2 chapter, instead of relying on the proper IPCC projections from their WG1 colleagues, cited an unreliable outside source in one place. Fixing this error involves deleting two sentences on page 493 of the WG2 report.
Sea level in the Netherlands: The WG2 report states that “The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level”. This sentence was provided by a Dutch government agency – the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, which has now published a correction stating that the sentence should have read “55 per cent of the Netherlands is at risk of flooding; 26 per cent of the country is below sea level, and 29 per cent is susceptible to river flooding”. It surely will go down as one of the more ironic episodes in its history when the Dutch parliament last Monday derided the IPCC, in a heated debate, for printing information provided by … the Dutch government. In addition, the IPCC notes that there are several definitions of the area below sea level. The Dutch Ministry of Transport uses the figure 60% (below high water level during storms), while others use 30% (below mean sea level). Needless to say, the actual number mentioned in the report has no bearing on any IPCC conclusions and has nothing to do with climate science, and it is questionable whether it should even be counted as an IPCC error.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 88354.html
However, we do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics. In the department of inconvenient truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the media, the U.S. Congress and other investigative bodies.
Actually, the emails are much more revealing for how LITTLE evidence of efforts to falsify data they present:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar … -cru-hack/
You are SO right: it was ONLY dozens. Among those dozens were several urgent messages to DESTROY other emails which we now know WERE destroyed.
Not that it matters much what the total number is: it is an absurd fantasy of those clinging to to the wreckage of the AGW hoax that the depth and breadth of the dishonesty involved in all of this is going to fade away. Falsifying data, destroying evidence, conspiring to discredit papers and their authors which don't support your position, conspiring to break FOIA laws, telling co-conspirators to destroy email evidence, and on and on and on. Only in your DREAMS is the AGW hoax going to survive.
"Only" dozens of emails? If you AGW Kool-Aid drinkers had ONE email from a prominent AGW debunker ("denier", in your parlance) telling his fellow debunkers to "hide the increase", to destroy emails and other evidence (raw data) showing they were lying and falsifying reports, to conspire in attempting to silence pro-AGW research papers and their writers, or any other sordid behavior like Jones, Mann, et al. engaged in, the world would never hear the end of it. That one email would be PROOF POSITIVE that the 'deniers' were corrupt and their science bogus. But when it's the other way around, "only" several dozen emails (those which survived the cover-up deletions Jones urgently demanded) are "no big deal". Right?
why, who knows the truth anyway -- maybe He didnt know the truth as well during those times, maybe he have been misled by the so many interests in this world, - for money and money and money
we should all stop the crap, we all both know and we should all save natural resources and thats all there is to it!
there's truth on both sides. yes, weather patterns are cyclic, and yes, Man impacts his environment in negative ways, and he needs to be more conscious of his environmental footprint.
800 emails-some discussing how they would cover up their bluff!!
Apparently you haven't read the emails either. From what I've read a few of them didn't help the climate scientists' case, but that the case for warming remains solid.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar … -and-spin/
You post links to RealClimate.org a few times now Ralph. I was wondering, who is Real Climate?
The results of a quick search search on whois.net revealed realclimate.org is registered to ‘Environmental Media Services’
Who is/are Environmental Media Services?
“EMS was founded in 1994 by Arlie Schardt, a former journalist, former communications director for Al Gore’s 2000 Presidential campaign” Realclimate.org is owned by Al Gore’s press officer.
So much for objectivity. Also tells me that KerryG complaining about some of the scientists working for oil companies only bothers her when its convenient.
Feel free to point out any inaccuracies in the information on the website. I believe the information on it is supplied by climate scientists.
You could have saved yourself some effort:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar … /12/about/
Here's the info on my preferred site, by the way:
I don't believe I've used it yet in this thread, but here's another of my favorite reference blogs:
If the Climate gate emails are nothing to worry about, why is Al Gore doing his best to brush this under the carpet as quickly as he can? He was quoted as saying
“To paraphrase Shakespeare, it’s sound and fury signifying nothing. I haven’t read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old”.
This is an outright lie, as there are over a 1000 emails, plus many more documents which go up till November 2009!
If you want a REAL, blow by blow account of the climategate email saga over several years, which clearly demonstrates the extent of the cover up, the refusal to provide data to other scientists who requested it, and the massaging of the data to “prove” global warming, look here
Climategate emails analysis. The complete story from 1996 to November 2009, by John P. Costella B.E.(Elec.)(Hons.) B.Sc.(Hons.) Ph.D.(Physics) Grad.Dip.Ed.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/repri … lysis.html
Climategate - A who's who of the scientists in the emails
http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate … the-emails
The actual Climategate emails are here:
To Al Gore, Climatgate signifies nothing, yet there is now an official enquiry underway in the UK and both lead scientists (Michael "hockey stick" Mann and Phil Jones) have been suspended.
Why are skeptics so obsessed with Al Gore? You guys pay much more attention to what he says than any AGW proponent I've ever known.
Any "analysis" that starts off by calling the scientists involved "conspirators" is going to have a hard time establishing any confidence in its credibility.
Try this instead: http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
Is the earth getting warmer? Of course it is. We don't have to argue whether Greenland was really green or if it was named this way to entice new settlers.
The "Iceman" thawed out out after being frozen for over 5,000 years. I do not think this can be considered just a warming spell. Now whether it is caused by man, is a natural occurrence, or is a combination of the two, is the question.
Certainly the destruction of the vast rain forests adds to this problem and so does our use of petroleum products to power our world. But the earth is warming up.
global warming, global shm-orming.
this has been the coldest winter on record with ridiculous snowfalls. where's the warm part come in. heck, it even snowed in New Orleans.
Al Gore is pissed cuz he got duped into the 'environmental act' which turned out to be big nothing and a huge wad of dollars in the pockets of savvy saleman on both sides getting rich off the fear of people.
in the `60s it was nukes. the `80s AIDES, today its geo-dumping.
Um, no. The Eastern US is not the world, or even the entire US.
In fact, on a global level we just had the warmest January in the UAH satellite record:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/05/h … l-warming/
Umm, but isn't Louisiana in the south?
even my folks back home -over the pond- said the snow was ridiculous this year...
Yes, but the Southeast. Up in the Northwest where my mom's family lives, it's been sunny and 60 degrees, and a few hours north in Vancouver, they've actually had to truck snow in to prepare for the Olympics.
The Southern Hemisphere has also been having an unusually warm summer in many areas.
A lot of the weirdness (both warm and cold) has been the result of El Nino, but from what I've heard, it hasn't been as strong an El Nino as '98 and the fact that we're breaking January temperature records is therefore a bit worrisome.
I, like you, Twenty One Days, am NOT a climatologist (though I do live with a meteorologist).
This means that my opinion is not worth the crud on the bottom of my shoe, but neither is yours, for the same reason.
However, I live in NEWFOUNDLAND, where it has been raining and mild for two weeks, despite it being February.... Frankly, the view from here is that something is seriously screwed up
i have never been. Been as far north as Nova Scotia since coming to the States.
love it up there.........
agreed on the shoe thing.
ps, meteorologist, hmm. male or femme? if femme is she as cute as the weather girl in Atlanta? just curious.
He is not cute. Actually I think he might be, it is hard for me to say......
He plays the ukelele, I don't know if that has any bearing on anything...
I did a bike tour of NS last summer and was shocked at how different it is from Newfoundland...
The arrogance of the belief of humans being the only factor influencing the weather is astounding. I didn't realize that humans had more influence then the cycles of the sun, the variations in the earths orbit, or even volcanoes that spew more particulates and "green house gases" into the atmosphere over the course of a few hours then humans have in their entire existence. I am so happy the "global warming alarmists" of now and the "global cooling alarmists" of a few years ago have proven the global temperature never fluctuated for hundreds of thousands of years until the industrial revolution. Maybe I am just ignorant for theorizing the earth will go through heating and cooling trends regardless of what humans do and will continue to do so after humans are gone.
No serious climate scientist has ever claimed that earth's climate has never changed in the past. To do so would be ludicrous.
The point is that all the usual factors known to influence changes in climate are currently quiet, with the exception of CO2, and CO2 levels are rising as a result of man's activities.
Given the power of natural climate forces, I can understand why many people think humans are extremely insignificant by comparison. Over the long term, we are. But in the short term, the evidence of our profound effect on earth's ecosystems is all around us and I do have difficulty understanding why it is so hard for some people to grasp that the profound changes we have made to the earth's surface might also be affecting its atmosphere.
To give you a personal example, I live in a part of the country that was once part of a vast tallgrass prairie that stretched from Canada to northern Mexico, Ohio to central Nebraska. Today, less than 1% of that prairie survives. The rest was plowed under to turn the region into the breadbasket of the world. A good thing, right? But from an ecological perspective, profoundly disruptive. Many of North America's most endangered flora and fauna are tallgrass natives, and several others (most famously the bison) were saved from the very brink of extinction.
(Virgin tallgrass, by the way, is one of the world's best carbon sequestration systems, while agricultural tilling is one of the world's leading sources of carbon emissions.)
In short, you are completely correct that the earth will still be going through heating and cooling trends for millions of years after the human race is gone, but modern humans have so far been remarkably lucky to live in a period of comparative climate stability, and that stability has allowed us to thrive and become the powerful force that we have. Why should we seek to speed our own extinction?
As we discussed earlier in this thread, there is some controversy over whether that was actually a global phenomenon, or merely a localized one. Phil Jones's recent remarks have been interpreted by some as confirming that the MWP was warmer than today, but what he actually said was that the temperature date for the Southern Hemisphere and tropical regions during the period was not sufficient to determine the degree of warming in those regions.
Based on the currently available (inadequate) data, however, this is a reconstruction of global temperature patterns during the period, relative to global temperatures from 1961 to 1990:
For comparison, here is the NOAA's temperature date from 1999-2008, relative to the same 1961-1990 period:
Regardless, nobody is disputing the fact that the climate changed in the past. The point is that the usual factors that drive climate change, including the sun, the Milankovich cycles, volcanoes, and more, are not currently active to a degree that would produce the observable warming. CO2, which has been recognized as a greenhouse gas since the 19th century, is, and in recent decades human activity has been the main force raising CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate … period.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 … gland.html
The voice of reason is not required in these threads KerryG.
Besides, it makes you sound as if you have a college degree.
Remember a college degree = gay = an enemy of Christ.
Unless,of course, you are a Catholic, C of E or a Calvinist. Then, God is Truth and one follows the light that science shines.
Oh wait, gays and lesbians are created by god ? Is it flaw of designer or Bad designer ?
"The Earth is Cooling
Global Lower Troposphere Temperatures and CO2
The graph above shows the temperature changes of the lower troposphere from the surface up to about 8 km as determined from the average of two analyses of satellite data. The UAH analysis is from the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the RSS analysis is from Remote Sensing Systems. The two analyses use different methods to adjust for factors such as orbital decay and inter-satellite difference. The best fit line from January 2002 indicates a declining trend. Surface temperature data is contaminated by the effects of urban development. The Sun's activity, which was increasing through most of the 20th century, has recently become quiet, causing a change of trend. The green line shows the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, as measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. The ripple effect in the CO2 curve is due to the seasonal changes in biomass. There is a far greater land area in the northern hemisphere than the south that is affected by seasons. During the Northern hemisphere summer there is a large uptake of CO2 from plants growing causing a drop in the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Cool periods in 1984 and 1992 were caused by the El Chichon and Pinatubo volcanic eruptions. The temperature spike in 1998 was cause by a strong El Nino."
It's good to see somebody put up some actual scientific data. I'm not a scientist but it strikes me that your "best fit" line covers a rather short period during which natural forces/fluctuations could have offset the warming effect of CO2. The shorter the period the less significant the data are, it seems to me. Here's what the NYTIMES had to say on it's editorial page this morning:
With Stakes This High
Published: February 17, 2010
Disclosures of isolated errors and exaggerations in the 2007 report from the United Nations panel on climate change do not undermine its main finding: that the planet has been warming gradually for more than a century and that human activity is largely responsible. But the misstatements have handed climate skeptics a public relations boost.
That’s not good news at a time when world leaders need to make tough decisions to control greenhouse gas emissions and when public confidence in the science is essential. Given the stakes, the panel cannot allow more missteps and, at the very least, must tighten procedures and make its deliberations more transparent.
The panel’s chairman, Rajendra K. Pachauri, an Indian engineer, also is under fire for taking consulting fees from business interests. Mr. Pachauri says he does not profit personally and channels the fees to a nonprofit research center he runs in New Delhi. Yet as the person most responsible for the panel’s integrity, he cannot afford even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
All this follows last November’s uproar over leaked e-mail messages that, while they had nothing to do with the panel’s reports, portrayed climate scientists as thin-skinned and fully capable of stifling competing views.
The controversy over the 2007 report has been stoked by charges of poor sourcing and alarmist forecasts, prominently a prediction — in a 938-page working paper — that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. This was clearly an exaggeration, though it was not included in the final report. An overblown warning of crop failures in North Africa made it into the final report.
Set against the bulk of the panel’s work — for which it received a Nobel Prize in 2008 — these errors seem small, the result of sloppiness, not deliberate misrepresentation. But they are still costly.
In a recent editorial in the journal Nature, Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote that while the scientific understanding of climate change remains “undiminished,” the “perceived misbehavior of even a few scientists can diminish the credibility of science as a whole.”
Dr. Cicerone is right on all counts: given the complexity and urgency of climate change — and its vulnerability to political posturing — scientists engaged in the issue must avoid personal agendas and be intellectually vigilant and above reproach.
My understanding is that discrepancies between the predicted behavior of the lower troposphere (that it will warm proportional to or even faster than surface and ocean temperatures) and its actual behavior (that in many years it has warming slower than or even cooling compared to surface and ocean temperatures) are one of the remaining puzzles of climate change science. For example, your chart shows 2005 to be unusually cold, when in terms of surface temperature NASA ranks 2005 as the hottest year on record. There's an interesting discussion of the issue here: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/s … xecsum.pdf (PDF file)
Meanwhile, we're having another El Nino year, so the cooling trend in the troposphere has reversed, to the point that UAH satellite data just recorded the warmest January on record - even though the El Nino is weaker than the one in 1998.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming years.
The other points in the article you c&p'd have already been debunked.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/microsi … rature.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat … al_warming
Solar activity contributed to warming in parts of the 20th century, but since roughly 1975, the sun has shown a cooling trend while Earth's temperatures have risen.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-a … arming.htm
my heating bill shows it was the coldest january since 2003 when i moved into the place.
1. Short term local weather is not the same thing as long term global climate.
2. Short term local weather is not even the same thing as short term global climate. Just because your area was unusually cold does not mean that other areas were not unusually hot, as in fact they were. Again, in Vancouver it was so warm and dry last month that they had to truck in snow for the Olympics and parts of the Southern Hemisphere have been roasting through record breaking heatwaves.
3. Global warming does not mean that winter is going to stop happening. The worst case scenario for warming over the next century is an increase of about 10 degrees Fahrenheit. It is currently 7 degrees F where I live, so that would still leave us WELL below freezing.
4. Global warming is not going to affect every area the same way. Some areas will become warmer and drier, some will become warmer and wetter. If the Gulf Stream gets disrupted by melting ice from Greenland and the Arctic (another worst case scenario), much of Europe is likely to become COLDER and drier.
5. Global warming is just one of any number of factors affecting global climate, and it will not necessarily supersede the others. Last year there was some Arctic Oscillation that resulted in some unusually cold December weather in parts of the US and Europe, and it's also an El Nino year.
6. El Nino is the main reason for the weird weather in January, both hot and cold. (Remember, the same climate factors affect different regions in different ways - shocking but true!) The concern is that it's a weaker El Nino than the notorious one of 1998, and it has still produced the hottest January on satellite record, suggesting that the record temperatures were caused by the combination of the average level El Nino with a higher base temperature, which means the warming has continued.
The real issue is not whether the planet is warming or not.
The real issue is whether human CO2 emissions will have a catastrophic and irreversible effect on the planet unless we act now to stop it.
This is the issue, and the solution proposed by Al Gore is carbon offset credits and carbon taxes. This is his baby and he stands to make billions from it. He says that Carbon taxes will save the planet. But, manifestly, carbon credits DO NOT WORK, and would do nothing to help save the planet EVEN IF what Al Gore says was true (and it isn’t).
Isn't this what we should really be discussing, and in fact taking action to stop?
You would think.
Personally, I'm opposed to cap and trade, but big business loves it, so of course that's what our elected officials in their infinite wisdom have decided to pursue.
Real change is going to have to come from the ground up on this issue, I think, but with the level of ignorance and misinformation among the general public right now, I'm not optimistic that it will happen in time to make a difference.
by Holle Abee 4 years ago
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/0 … w-settled/
by sannyasinman 10 years ago
Quote from Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara. "It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the...
by theirishobserver. 10 years ago
A masseuse has accused Al Gore, the former US vice president, of sexually assaulting her at an Oregon hotel during a global warming lecture tour in 2006
by Mr Tindle 10 years ago
Do those who believe in man-made global warming think that Al Gore is a good representative for...the "Green" movement?
by days leaper 10 years ago
Hi. Do You really think global warming is a fraud?Thanks! For your kind words. (I haven't worked out how to make a formal profile thank you, yet. It seems to appear sometimes and not others. I will sort it eventually. Best Wishes
by SparklingJewel 10 years ago
here's a sensationalized Jessie Ventura "Conspiracy Theory" episode on climate change--its summation is not that climate change is not true, but that it is being used to make money for elitists around the worldcheck it out...lots of good information...Ventura is a hoot in how he speaks so...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|