backtop


Print 513 comment(s) - last by plowak.. on Mar 14 at 12:01 PM


World Temperatures according to the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction. Note the steep drop over the last year.
Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here.  The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.

Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.

Update 2/27: The graph for HadCRUT (above), as well as the linked graphs for RSS and UAH are generated month-to-month; the temperature declines span a full 12 months of data.  The linked GISS graph was graphed for the months of January only, due to a limitation in the plotting program.   Anthony Watts, who kindly provided the graphics, otherwise has no connection with the column.  The views and comments are those of the author only.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

And the moral of the story is...
By geddarkstorm on 2/26/2008 1:48:45 PM , Rating: 5
Climate fluctuates. The world isn't going to follow our preconceived ideas even if a panel of scientists says it should. But that's what we call leaning; if we knew everything we'd have nothing to learn, and when it comes to climate we obviously have a lot. Things like this are very interesting to read and learn about, it just isn't a surprise, especially involving climate where one would expect there to be a lot of fluctuations.

I guess we'll find out in another year more of what's going on (what the trend is, or if this is just a blip so to speak), but this has definitely been one heck of a winter.




RE: And the moral of the story is...
By MadMaster on 2/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: And the moral of the story is...
By porkpie on 2/26/2008 2:09:27 PM , Rating: 5
Three hundredths of a degree. I'm quaking in boots here in fear over that.

The earth warmed up 1900-1940, when hardly anyone was driving cars. And now that CO2 is twice as high, the whole planet is cooling! Somehow I don't think CO2 is the devil-gas you people claim it is.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By liminality on 2/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: And the moral of the story is...
By Hawkido on 2/27/2008 6:05:17 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I'm just a dad, husband and citizen who's trying to show some responsibility in a world of excess.


You forgot gullible fool...

And if you are not able to do without your plastics and modern appliances first without imposing your bunk legislation on the rest of us, then add Hypocrite to the list.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By robinthakur on 2/28/2008 9:21:32 AM , Rating: 4
Agreed, I find the whole global warming thing really disturbing. Its like the Akira cult (from Akira). Its like the scientists are competing with the religious nuts to convince us that "Armageddon is coming soon". The most disturbing thing is that Governments are being coerced by a mouthy minority lobby to act and legislate against a phantom problem and their is a real anti-progress, anti-west, anti consumerism and anti-technology flavour to it all. I would almost say that the mod's reaction is against how far we have come from more simple times and the extent to which technology has entered our lives and the puritan feeling that excess in all its forms is somehow 'wrong'?.

Global warming might well be completely unrelated to environmental pollution and to the fact that Oil and Gas (and eventually coal) are likely to run out, both utter tragedies whcih are 100% genuine. Don't get me wrong, I feel that pollution is absolutely wrong and we need to completely reduce the amount of items we send to land-fill and recycling them where possible makes sense. We need to urgently find replacement fuels to replace oil.

This does not imply that Global Warming is related to any of the above. I feel that the net effect of the overstated Global Warming craze is just one where Governments and companies tax you either directly or indirectly more on anything they can. Its already happening in the UK. To believe that they are motivated by concern for the environment is gullible at best and kidding yourselves. They do it for votes, and they do it to extract more money and control out of the populace. The human condition dictates that we must be having an effect on the planet (in our minds) After all we are more than 6 billion humans in the world, and that number seems awfully big, doesn't it? The whole CO2/warming correlation I have always considered tenuous at best and the whole idea seems entirely self-important and too far fetched to be believable...

The worst case scenario is that the earth gets too hot/cold to support human life, humanity dies out and then it returns to balance eventually in a couple of thousand years. Problem solved.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By plowak on 3/14/2008 11:38:33 AM , Rating: 2
2012, 2012, 2012...


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By cloudsifter on 2/27/2008 8:35:08 PM , Rating: 5
Dad, don't take "you people" so personally. Check the Constitution- there was no "right to not be offended". I know the school conditioned you to be offended at every little thing that 'feels' uncomfortable. I just purchased a chill pill offset in your name. And new evidence shows 'again' that it's ok to let your kid play contact sports, without getting a trophy, cause everyone DOESN'T win. Did you ever notice it's mostly the kids who were brought up in the timeout era who came up with all of this bunk? Now acting up in school is a 'mental disease'... what has come of this world? Keep drinking the fluoride water. Yes, even 1ppm was bad for us and it didn't help our teeth. Tell me, are you a member of K.O.O.K.S ( K eep O ur O wn K ids S afe)?

Showing some 'responsibility' is teaching your kids not to dive in head first when Mr. Al Gore claims to have thousands of scientists (many of whom flat-out deny endorsing the 'theory'), and is proven grossly wrong on the major claims of his global warming (oops, they changed it cause that wasn't popular- "Climate Change" now) theory in a liberal country, in a liberal court. Responsibility is teaching kids to practice what you preach- not "Al Gore's do as I say not as I do" while I spread the word on Global...sorry- Climate Change. Responsibility is to teach them what a joke "carbon offsets" or credits are. Responsibility is to show them what a crock it was to 'fill in the blank' on the chart when the Global Warming data didn't fit the model. So, I'm not sure what you mean by us people "ignoring' the evidence". Us people did not ignore the evidence- evidence that we did not have to "doctor". " but to deny that pumping billions of tons of small particles into the air may not lead to global warming is insane"? I don't deny that it may not lead - I go one further and say the evidence says it is NOT leading to that. But, once the GW crowd gets stuck in a loop, they just don't let go, even when the evidence is countered- scientifically. I don't blame you too much though, the education system has gone so liberal and if it feels good (save the earth- the new religion) do it. It's not your fault. And, of course, all of the new industry that was put on the fast track to come up around the bogus theory, well, if we changed now, jobs would be lost and we just can't do that. GW/CC is just a big money grab.

What science would YOU have to see to get you off this global warming bandwagon? Is the fact that those who came before you WROTE IT DOWN- including the ice age hoax of the 70's and now, the GW/CC crisis? How much more plain can it get besides a picture right in front of your face?

Dad, follow my voice- come toward the light... listen
real hard at about 4:30min mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCVQI-GI6Is

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-...


By SilthDraeth on 2/28/2008 9:31:22 PM , Rating: 2
Woot you mentioned fluoride. So many people do not believe me that it is horrible. And don't forget aspartame.


By initialised on 3/2/2008 8:43:09 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCVQI-GI6Is uses the same logic as the argument justifying belief in god and ignores the case in point where we cannot influence climate change.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By DrTech on 2/27/2008 10:54:12 PM , Rating: 2
You say we are "pumping billions of tons of small particles into the air" -- I think you are confused. Particles in the atmosphere (e.g., soot) cause cooling. The air has gotten cleaner, and this has contributed to warming. CO2 is a gas, and pumping billions of tons of it into the atmosphere probably causes some warming. By how much, who really knows. The point of the article is that while we are worrying about global warming, an ice age could come along and freeze our butts off. It seems we have a society of worriers. When I was growing up, we worried about global cooling. Then there was Ebola, the bird flu, nuclear melt downs, and pesticides. Look, on average, we are living longer, which says to me that the net effect of all human actions is good, not bad.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By KeypoX on 3/7/2008 10:20:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You say we are "pumping billions of tons of small particles into the air" -- I think you are confused. Particles in the atmosphere (e.g., soot) cause cooling. The air has gotten cleaner, and this has contributed to warming. CO2 is a gas, and pumping billions of tons of it into the atmosphere probably causes some warming.


no no i think you are the one confused. C02 even though its called a gas is still made up of "billions of tons of small particles" despite you not being able to see it it is made of particles with a mass and weight. Soot is the incomplete combustion of carbon to gas. the theory of global warming is that the gas particles are getting trapped in the atmosphere causing a green house effect.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By PlasmaBomb on 3/13/2008 8:11:32 PM , Rating: 2
Technically Carbon dioxide is a molecule. It's made up of an atom (particle) of carbon and two oxygen atoms.

I think atom is a better way of expressing it, and saves confusion of a gas with particulates.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By plowak on 3/14/2008 11:48:55 AM , Rating: 1
Noop, carbon dioxide is just a bunch of hot air.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By Vangel on 2/27/2008 11:18:55 PM , Rating: 3
The moral of the story is that people are gullible and will believe all kinds of things rather than check facts and use common sense. When I was in school the scientists and the media were pushing the global cooling story and jumping up and down trying to get the governments to 'do something.' A few years later they were arguing for global warming driven by CO2 even though the science clearly showed that the earth had been warmer during the MWP and Roman Warming and common sense would expect that after a period that we called the Little Ice Age one would expect temperatures to go up.

As a father myself I do not want to see scarce resources being wasted on terrible mathematical models and wild speculation. There are too many problems in the world that require serious attention to waste resources on something that is not real.


By initialised on 3/2/2008 8:45:53 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
As a father myself I do not want to see scarce resources being wasted on terrible mathematical models and wild speculation. There are too many problems in the world that require serious attention to waste resources on something that is not real.
Sadly religion is part of being human


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By leebert on 2/28/2008 12:53:55 AM , Rating: 5
You seem well intentioned but you've been utterly misled:

1. Even the pro-AGW researchers concede that the sun played a dominant role in GW until the mid-to-late 20th century.

2. The IPCC cites CO2 as causing 40-45 PERCENT of AGW in the past century. According to them it's been the biggest component, but not the majority component.

3. By the "poles" I assume you mean the Arctic. Most of the Arctic melt-off of the past 150 years has been due to dirty snow caused by soot coupled with increased solar activity (see above). Same goes for Kilimanjaro in the tropics with the added factor of loss of recharge precipitation due to deforestation lossage of arboreal microclimates. Westerly-borne (Asian) soot has been causing more than half of the ice pack lossage in the American Rockies as well. The rest is due largely to local soot & land use changes (deforestation) that have altered recharge precipitation patterns.

4. Likewise SOOT has been discovered to cause more warming than surface dimming (cooling). SO much so that it's found to be accountable for up to HALF of what's been blamed on CO2. Time to revise some computer models, eh? Note how the rhetoric has shifted from "CO2" to "greenhouse gases."

Look, I think you are trying to do the responsible thing but what politicos around the world have latched onto is a way to conscript your conscience by calling you into a noble endeavor. But how noble is that endeavor, actually?

Let's look @ Kyoto. As it is structured Kyoto TAXES Western countries for their CO2 use, exempts developing countries (importantly China & India) from those same taxes & PAYS them instead (again CHina & India) to eliminate CO2 sources & develop low-CO2 energy sources. If you believe in AGW looks good on paper.

In practice this is how it's being found to work:

1. Western factory jobs are already being off-shored to China, India, elsewhere in Asia.

2. The Kyoto CO2 "taxes" further encourage the loss of domestic production by increasing the incentive to offshore production. Bad for labor? You bet. But somehow in pro-labor Europe this hasn't become a big issue quite yet, but it's starting to simmer.

3. The whole point of Kyoto is overall lower CO2 emissions. Although China emits 1/3rd the per capita CO2 of say, the USA, China's emissions per unit of production are 40 PERCENT HIGHER than the WORLD AVERAGE (and even higher than the West's avg). China's soot output (only recently discovered to cause more net atmospheric warming than surface cooling, up to HALF of what had heretofore blamed on CO2) is the highest per capita in the world.

So do you see what this means? It means that the rank & file environmentalist bloc has been snookered into both offshoring & destroying domestic production & jobs AND increasing CO2 emissions!!

Noble endeavor? Kyoto's about ready to be exposed as a big lie, as big as the Children's Crusade.

And when the rank & file pro-environment people figure out how they've been led by the nose by Al Gore the same way the wicked witch of PETA leads her cult of fools, all around the world Gore be hung in effigy by his former followers, the labor bloc will register their votes from the rooftops.

/leebert


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By rcc on 2/28/2008 5:40:08 PM , Rating: 3
Unfortunately, that would require them to admit that the Emperer has no clothes. Not going to happen, they'll segue it into something else first.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By davemay135 on 2/28/2008 10:30:41 AM , Rating: 3
I just want to know one thing: when a cooling trend does establish itself (this may or may not be the start of one, but one will occur) does that mean we need to pump more pollution into the atmosphere in order to keep the Earth's temp right?


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By rcc on 2/28/2008 5:41:20 PM , Rating: 5
No, it means we leave the frikkin' thing alone and adapt. : )


By eye smite on 3/1/2008 7:35:48 AM , Rating: 3
Actuallly it's the height of man's hubirous to think he can predict the weather on a global scale. In the early 70s scientists were saying global cooling and as a kid I distincly remember making a snowman in Pasadena Texas where it never snows. The short and long of it is, looking historically, you'll find that scientists take a pinch of data, paint a big picture and hold their hands out for more grants and funds to continue research. If you really dig you'll find that repeatedly. Let me ask this though, how often does your local weatherman actually make an accurate prediction on the weather? Based on whatever answer you give for that, then try and ask that same question about these experts trumpeting the global warming trend.


By flutedude2005 on 3/10/2008 12:27:40 PM , Rating: 1
well said sir.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By ArcliteHawaii on 2/29/2008 3:04:44 PM , Rating: 5
I am truly amazed at the level of ignorance here.

quote:
The earth warmed up 1900-1940, when hardly anyone was driving cars.

No, but we had been burning coal for hundreds of years already. Coal produces twice the CO2 per unit of energy.

quote:
And now that CO2 is twice as high, the whole planet is cooling! Somehow I don't think CO2 is the devil-gas you people claim it is.

A single data point does not a trend make. Did you even look at the graph above? The winters in '93 and '94 were colder than the current cold temps. The trend for warming has been going on for over 150 years. Some points will be above the trend and some below. There will be outliers. That's statistics. If we'd had these cold winters for a decade, you'd have some standing. As it is, you're just showing your lack of understanding.

If reduced solar activity is cooling the planet, then all we've been granted is a reprieve. That's not at all proof that CO2 doesn't cause the earth to retain heat. We should take advantage of that to reduce CO2, methane, and NO2 levels in the atmosphere, so when there is a period of increased solar activity, we don't all fry.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By tsdogg on 2/29/2008 3:43:54 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
No, but we had been burning coal for hundreds of years already. Coal produces twice the CO2 per unit of energy.


Actually CO2 emmitting hydrocarbon usage has had a six-fold increase since 1940. During that time global temporature decreased from 1940 to 1970 and been on a slight upward trend since 1970. The majority of the warming in the twentieth century took place before 1940 and before a large amount of Hyrdorcarbon use.

quote:
The trend for warming has been going on for over 150 years.


Correct. Ever since we emerged from the little ice age around 1850. Studies have shown an extremely high correlation between solar activity and temperature, where as C02 lags temperature and is more of an effect than a cause.

quote:
That's not at all proof that CO2 doesn't cause the earth to retain heat. We should take advantage of that to reduce CO2, methane, and NO2 levels in the atmosphere, so when there is a period of increased solar activity, we don't all fry.


Actually there is no proof that it does and everything to suggest that it does not. Drasticly reducing C02 would be costly and reduce the stadard of living for most and doom people in less developed counties to continue a life of poverty.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By bmdowney on 2/29/2008 3:52:59 PM , Rating: 2
yes, coal burning was occurring, but at what volume were we burning coal?

I do agree with you in response to the second quote. One year, is not enough to make a trend, and as a greenhouse, CO2 must have some sort of warming affect (though exact figures differ too much to be exactly sure how much). However, if past trends in solar cycles have *note the 'IF' because further research must occur before any exact conclusions can be made* a coorelation with weather along with the La Niña and El Niño events then to say that they only offset what heating the CO2 levels now will cause seems like you mean that CO2 outweighs these others, but that has not been conclusively evaluated with actual scientific research for all those fields.
(if i interpreted your comment incorrectly, i apologize, however there is my two cents)


By bmdowney on 2/29/2008 3:56:00 PM , Rating: 2
darn, mine was in response to ArcliteHawaii's post on 2/29/2008 3:04:44 PM
sorry for confussion


By jimbojimbo on 3/3/2008 3:22:24 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone forgets that water vapor is also a greenhouse gas and much more plentiful than CO2. Let's wait for the call from environmentalists to destroy all H20 on earth!


By eye smite on 3/1/2008 7:42:47 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
We should take advantage of that to reduce CO2, methane, and NO2 levels in the atmosphere, so when there is a period of increased solar activity, we don't all fry.

That's the real dramatization in all this isn't it, that we're going to fry? It's the height of man's hubirous to think can predict the weather on a local level much less a global level. I've lived long enough o hear scientists say we're in a global cooling period to global warming and now back to a global cooling trend. Pssst, they just want more funding and they scare you with words like we're frying because of all this. Try digging deeper in your research say at least 50 yrs back.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By ChronoReverse on 2/26/2008 2:44:48 PM , Rating: 5
Wait, there's a normal temperature now for Earth?


By T4RTER S4UCE on 2/26/2008 4:28:37 PM , Rating: 4
It doesn't matter what temperature it is, it's always room temperature.


By Hawkido on 2/27/2008 6:12:41 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Wait, there's a normal temperature now for Earth?


Of Course there is!

The Global Normal temperature of the Earth is a complex mathmatical formula... I'll fill you in.

Current temp - 1 = Normal temperature

Now apply what I have told you and see if it works out according to the GNN (Gore News Network)

"A hundres years ago the global Normal temperature was 1 degree cooler than it is now!"

See, it works perfectly!


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By spikeitnow on 2/27/2008 7:52:05 PM , Rating: 5
No, there's no 'normal' temp.

Everybody is misinterpreting the chart. Zero on the chart isn't 'zero degrees above normal,' it's 'zero degrees C,' i.e. the freezing point of water. The chart shows that over the last 21 years, the global average temperature has fluctuated between .1 degree below freezing, and .75 degrees above freezing, Celsius.

That's right, as a whole, the planet's surface is less than one degree above freezing. I'm not a climatologist, but I suspect that when it drops much below zero, glaciers tend to spread out from the poles, and when it's much above zero, they tend to recede.

The chart shows that this January, we're .037 degrees above freezing, on average. Not a margin I particularly like.


By jbartabas on 2/27/2008 8:07:57 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, too bad I have posted already, I would have rated you up! Hope you get a 5 for that :-D


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By JustTom on 2/27/2008 9:38:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The chart shows that this January, we're .037 degrees above freezing, on average. Not a margin I particularly like.


If that is what the chart says, and I do not agreethat it is, then the chart is wrong. The world mean minimum daily temp for January is around 12C (see http://tinyurl.com/2llc4n ). What I think the chart is depicting is the change in temp from a baseline year. Also from Masher's intro:

quote:
The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees


Thinking the chart is expressing temp in absolute terms rather than changes from a baseline year is just weird. The chart then would depict the mean world temp never rising above 1 degree C.


By jbartabas on 2/28/2008 11:05:17 AM , Rating: 2
You may want to check these references to complete you research:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonsense_verse


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By plowak on 3/14/2008 12:01:55 PM , Rating: 2
Cooling does not cause glaciers, warming does. You have to evaporate lots of water to create lots of snow to pack into lots of ice which takes lots of heat. Somebody pointed that out a long time ago...Lord kelvin? Erny Centigrade?


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By dever on 2/26/2008 4:36:44 PM , Rating: 2
Chrono beat me to it... but please, we're waiting. What is the "normal" temperature of the earth? (Climatologists get your pencils ready.)


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By jbartabas on 2/26/2008 4:49:07 PM , Rating: 2
'Normal' means average over a given period of time considered representative of a stable state. It is commonly used in meteorology, probably a bit more tricky to define in climato where you deal with scale where stability in rare. However the notion is not especially shocking and is the basis for an anomaly analysis.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By rykerabel on 2/26/2008 6:44:06 PM , Rating: 2
They stopped using "normal" without qualifiers about 20 years ago. now they always include "more" and "closer to" and similar inexact terminology.

no meteorologist will ever make a claim to a specific value for any weather related phenomenon.

(LOL, I didn't trust myself, I had to look up "inexact", and yes it is an acceptible word)


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By jbartabas on 2/26/2008 6:55:00 PM , Rating: 1
Considering the 'normal' has a quantitative definition, the anomaly can be quantified (that's the all point) and later qualified with whatever word you'd like.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By dever on 2/27/2008 3:55:26 PM , Rating: 2
If you use the term "normal" that implies that an "abnormal" temperature is possible. When change is continuous, the terms "normal" and "abnormal" become less meaningful outside of historical data confined to an arbitrarily contrived time period. The terminology becomes much less useful for the purpose of categorizing present or future temperatures.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By jbartabas on 2/27/2008 4:34:08 PM , Rating: 2
Except that "abnormal" would be referred as anomaly, yes the terminology is meaningful, nobody ever said it was not arbitrary, and it is not only useful but used on a regular basis and you obviously have no clue of what you're talking about (I don't even understand what the fact that a change is 'continuous' or not (sic!) has to do with the definition of a normal ...)


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By masher2 (blog) on 2/27/2008 4:36:59 PM , Rating: 2
> "nobody ever said it was not arbitrary"

On the contrary, when one attempts to rebut an argument with "but we're still above normal!", they're implying the baseline standard is not arbitrary, and has meaning in itself.


By jbartabas on 2/27/2008 5:09:07 PM , Rating: 2
Again, arbitrary does not mean 'meaningless'.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By dlong500 on 2/26/2008 6:03:09 PM , Rating: 2
What the hell is "normal" temperature? You need to get better terminology. There is no such thing is a "normal", or correct, temperature for the Earth. This is the kind of misguided thinking that causes all the problems in the first place.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By jbartabas on 2/26/2008 6:15:27 PM , Rating: 3
Again, you don't understand the context for ' normal 'here, it has nothing to do with 'correct', 'right', 'good' or any other moral statement.

A few general definitions:
quote:
Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations.


quote:
Biology. Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.


As for the point of concern here:
quote:
Climatologists define normal temperature as the 1961-1990 average temperature for a given area.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s570.htm

Note however that slight differences exist in this definition among various climate centers.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By grenableu on 2/26/2008 7:48:56 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that 1961-1990 period was unusually cool. So when you say we're half a degree above "normal", it sounds like we're heating up when really we're just returning to a normal state.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By jbartabas on 2/26/2008 8:14:34 PM , Rating: 2
1/ I am not saying anything ;-) I just state what's the way many climatologists define as the 'normal' (that, again, as no moral meaning, it's just a reference point).
2/ When you say 'unusually cool' for the period 1961-1990, are you referring to the cooling period post 1950 in particular? Is that what you meant by returning to a normal state, or else, what would constitute a 'normal state' to you?


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By dever on 2/27/2008 3:58:37 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, exactly the point. The term "normal" is fairly useless in this context without a well defined reference point... which was lacking when originally stated.


By jbartabas on 2/27/2008 4:14:41 PM , Rating: 2
Again, the reference point is well defined to whom knows even a little bit about the subject:

quote:
Climatologists define normal temperature as the 1961-1990 average temperature for a given area.


The difference is that he knows what he's talking about and you obviously have no clue ...

The author of the article on which Masher's article is based states himself:

quote:
January 2008 was an exceptional month for our planet, with a significant cooling. January 2007 started out well above normal.

Note he also reports the numbers above normal (the anomaly) in black.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By MadMaster on 2/26/2008 11:50:25 PM , Rating: 1
When I was referring to normal, I was referring to the graph. It says a temperature anomaly of .037 degrees. So hey, it's cold, but it's still not colder than the average. Btw, the normal is the average from 1850 to 2008. Here is another graph that shows the temperatures of the last 150 years...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Inst...

Oh and between 1961 and 1990 (actually it's more like 1940-1970), there was not a cooling. There was a halt of global warming. There is evidence that this was caused by aerosols. However, it is difficult to prove with any certainty.

More info here on aerosols...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/cate...

Oh and btw, a month is FAR to short to statistically plot any climatic trend.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By Topweasel on 2/27/2008 3:16:55 PM , Rating: 5
What is wrong with taking anything that only goes back as far as 1850 is a.) 1850 is still considered to be part of the Little Ice age that started in 1200. B.) It coincides with the start of an upward trend in temperature that eventually triggered the end of the Little Ice Age. C.) Temperature in 2004-2005 only just exceeded the highest temperature at its highest just prior to the Little Ice Age. D.) That 1000 year high has already decreased over the last 2 years and if January and February are any signs that we will see at least as significant of a drop in 08 as the increase in 04. E.)That due to increased car usage in China the most that best case in CO2 generated by cars is level with the 04 numbers but most likely has increased.

I am really fearful of this quick fix philosophy that we as a world, and most definitely the US environmentalist groups in the US have. The world has always seemed to be able to deal with gradual changes better then we think whether is through changing the coverage area and density of the Ozone or increased or decreased plant life. It seems to me the earth is has always been a pendulum, always a second late on its changes but finding balance in chaos. Our quick fix attitude seems to me that again we find ourselves more important then we are (like we could actually cause the planet to self destruct)when actually us changing to rapidly to fix one problem could cause the world the pendulum to swing faster till everything spirals out of control.

In the end taking the average of a constantly rising temperature of a world coming off an Ice Age isn't exactly the best way to judge what the perfect temperature is. How about we wait 800 years (after the Ice Age for the length of the ice age) and then maybe we could find the "normal" temp.

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


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By MadMaster on 2/27/08, Rating: 0
By Topweasel on 2/28/2008 9:16:34 AM , Rating: 2
The 0 point on the graph isn't the normal temperature, and honestly it was probably taken to prove that 2004 was this super high number and it was only gotten worse. My point was we had one year that spiked above the medieval high in 1200 that immediately started what is referred to as the mini ice age and since that spike we have progressively in 05 and 06 have been seeing a drop in temperature and if Jan and Feb are any sign then this year might bring us below what any increase we have seen over the last 100 years.

What I was saying about the temp part was 1850 was at a low point that started an increase in temperature that signaled the end of something we refer to as an ice age.


By TDurden on 2/28/2008 7:11:36 PM , Rating: 2
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Inst...

Oh, what IPCC-licking collection of data-twisters did THAT come from? It looks exactly like the IPCC's infamously WRONG "hockeystick".

(For those of you with no clue "infamously wrong"=="outright lying").

Here's a graph of 50-state record highs for the last 110 years:
http://bp0.blogger.com/_b5jZxTCSlm0/R5yRPjfAIQI/AA...

That's the number of record high temps in each state, broken into years in which they occurred, for a period of over 110 years, and a running 10-yr average

http://hallofrecord.blogspot.com/2008/01/global-wa...

That reveals:
a) a 70 year cycle is suggested from 1895-1975 -- note the similarity between 1975-2005 and 1895-1925 (this also suggest another possible peak in a decade, then another long decline for the next 30 years).
b) That your "hockey stick" is a load of rubbish.

I'll leave the worldwide data to all the other sources listed here. You're either ignorant or a fool, and probably both.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By clovell on 2/27/2008 2:31:19 PM , Rating: 3
The flip side of the coin is that when you introduce ENZO into your argument against global cooling, global warming proponents also lose the argument that AGW affects the level of Hurricane activity.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By dever on 2/27/2008 4:07:24 PM , Rating: 2
Dumb question... what is ENZO?


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By masher2 (blog) on 2/27/2008 4:34:52 PM , Rating: 2
"ENSO"...aka the El Nino Southern Oscillation.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By clovell on 2/28/2008 2:22:20 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for catching that, Michael, I spelled it completely wrong. They make us use IE 6.0 at work - no FF allowed on the validated systems.


By JonnyDough on 3/9/2008 1:31:04 PM , Rating: 2
Firefox wouldn't help you to catch it anyway, since ENSO is highlighted as a misspelled word due to it being an abbreviation. Furthermore, ENZO is the name of a model made by Ferrari, although it too is flagged as a misspelling.

Therefore, if you didn't know it spell check wouldn't have helped you to realize the miss-abbreviation. It doesn't much matter though, as I suspect the majority reading this have likely never even heard of the Ferrari.


By GoldBoar on 3/1/2008 12:21:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
is still .037 degrees above normal...


The problem is that he who defines "normal" determines whether the current temperature is higher or lower now than it was at some particular period of the Earth's 4 billion or so years. No one argues that since the last ice age it has been both much colder and much warmer than it is today. Even the El Nino peak of 1998 was much colder than the temperature during the Holocene optimum.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By noodles2 on 2/27/2008 3:45:56 PM , Rating: 3
This has been a fascinating series of posts, but I really just need to understand, if global cooling is the result of decreased solar activity, then how in the world will someone be able to blame USA automobile drivers?


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By dever on 2/27/2008 4:11:28 PM , Rating: 2
The "how" is easy. Our freedoms allow anyone to say anything. However, the more important question is "why?" It seems that those enjoying the freedom to blame, do so in an attempt to sacrifice everyone else's freedoms through government control. It seems to be a means to an end.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By rcc on 2/28/2008 5:55:56 PM , Rating: 2
Hah, that's an easy one. Our facination with driving keeps us from concentrating on warming the sun.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By bfonnes on 3/7/2008 3:15:59 AM , Rating: 2
I knew without even opening the story that the author would be masher. My apologies to the author, as I know he is intelligent and has vast stores of technical knowledge, but I think dailytech's credibility as a news source has been going down since the time they started allowing his blogs to appear as news articles. He likes to argue fringe topics and I wouldn't exactly call it news.


RE: And the moral of the story is...
By bfonnes on 3/7/2008 3:23:31 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, and I didn't mention... There are two issues besides the silly debate... I have read Al Gore's book, and I looked at the numbers in it and I think that the whole global warming debate isn't exactly getting the point. Climate change is normal. Rapid temperature fluctuations are not. I think we face a far greater danger from massive temperature fluctuations and the resulting weather disasters and the consequences of that. These are my own conclusions. I'm not repeating anything I've read. The other problem is... who wants to breath dirty air all the time? It's not healthy. Have you considered the consequences of your all out assault here, masher2?


By bfonnes on 3/7/2008 3:30:26 AM , Rating: 2
edit: The greater danger is in the near term while the earth's climate has to constantly correct itself. Maybe we're not doing permanent damage to the earth, but we're certainly gonna get our butts kicked by Mother Nature, so to speak, if we just ignore it.

Also, another thing to consider. It's a proven fact that polar ice caps are melting. The freezing and melting points of water are finite. If they melt, no "average cooling temperature" or localizing trend is going to magically make them reappear. Do you have any science showing how they formed in the first place? I hope anyone that would be so arrogant to claim that we won't lose them forever can furnish this kind of science before making any claims.


By bfonnes on 3/7/2008 3:42:53 AM , Rating: 2
I think you should leave the science to the scientists, masher2. You're comparing apples to oranges. There aren't any studies that I know of that can provide the kind of logical leaps that you're making in your conclusions. Gore's main points in his book have to do with rising CO2 levels. Data that has been recorded for at least 60 years real time. Now, 20 years of data doesn't trump 60. Also, why was that chart even made? Where's the context and what were they studying? If they were studying temperature fluctuations, how do you know that it had anything to do with global warming. You're comparing a specific observation with a theory. The comparison isn't valid. And the range of values until the last spike down that your whole rant is about is not even significant in regards to the totality of the data. If anything it does more to prove warming. If the earth is indeed warming, then, at some point, equilibrium would say that the rebound will be ever more pronounced.

Think about it.


By Golferdude7238 on 3/7/2008 12:00:30 PM , Rating: 2
The year without a summer in the Carolinas....

The year 1816 was famous as "the year without a summer." That year started out, in Stanley as well as other regions of the south, so mild for the months of January and February that many folks let their fires go out and burned wood only for cooking; however, March was very cold and windy. Showers started the Month of April but ended with snow and ice. In May the temperature was like that of winter. The young buds that began forming in April were stiff and frozen. Ice, one half inch thick formed on ponds and rivers in North and South Carolina. Corn was killed and after being planted again and again nothing was reaped from the cornfields. June was cold, the coldest month ever experienced in this latitude. Almost all green things as well as fruits were killed. There was ice, frost, and some snow flurries in July. August proved to be the worst month of all not only here but even in Europe. September started out with two weeks of pleasant weather and the rest of the month was cold. October and November were extremely cold and then December was mild. This extraordinary weather condition in 1816 had been caused by the volcanic eruption of Mt. Temboro in the Dutch East Indies, blowing 50 cubic miles of dust into the air and killing some 66,000 people. The volcanic dust clouded the skies all over the earth causing doom and gloom and the "year without a summer."

What do you think, could humans do this much damage to planet Earth's weather in a lifetime???????

I think not. Volcanoes put more CFC's into the atmosphere every day than all of mankind has already done.

Global Warming ALGORE style is a FARCE


Global warming or climate change?
By maven81 on 2/26/08, Rating: 0
RE: Global warming or climate change?
By nbachman on 2/26/2008 1:49:44 PM , Rating: 3
Reduced solar activity perhaps.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By 16nm on 2/26/2008 3:37:34 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. That's exactly what I keep reading about...


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By ConfrontingReality on 2/27/2008 2:08:08 AM , Rating: 1
11 of the last 12 years have been the hottest 11 years on record since 1850. One year of declining temperatures should hardly be called a trend or the start of an ice age.

An alternative to the solar irradiation theory might be all the new SO2 and particulate matter coming from all the new dirty coal plants in China and India.

Both SO2 and particulate matter have the effect of reducing global warming. There is a correlation between increased global warming and when we began scrubbing our coal plants here in the USA.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By James Holden on 2/27/2008 3:28:24 AM , Rating: 2
Ooops. This was disproven after it was discovered that GISS, the institute cited whenever someone mentions the words global warming, flubbed the data:

http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+Finds+Y2K+Bug+in+...


By wildlifer on 2/27/2008 6:45:25 AM , Rating: 1
You're wrong. That barely changed the data.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By Staples on 2/26/08, Rating: 0
RE: Global warming or climate change?
By porkpie on 2/26/2008 2:26:32 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
it does not mean that the world will get hotter.
Err, yes it does. Greenhouse gases trap heat, the planet gets hotter, the icecaps melt and we all drown or die from massive heat waves. Haven't you been listening to the rhetoric of the past 20 years?

Ever since the world started cooling off in 1998, enviros have been hedging their bets by referring to it as 'climate change'. But man-made CO2 doesn't cause the whole planet to cool off. It can't.

Climate Change is what's happening right now. The sun changes a little, and the earth gets colder. Global warming is what's not happening. SUVs are not causing the end of civilization as we know it.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By Esanity on 2/26/2008 2:35:24 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for speaking truth to power. Golbal warming isn't a science or based on one. It is a political movement to end the use of fossil fuels. If climate change does not mean warming, then why do we care if we add greenhouse gasses. And if the ice isn't going to melt, what are we worried about?


By cheetah2k on 2/26/2008 9:43:07 PM , Rating: 2
Did Tom Cruise and Scientology have anything to do with starting the Global Warming rumors???


By StevoLincolnite on 2/26/2008 10:57:49 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it is a Science, To much green house gases WILL cause the heat to get trapped, and thus the planet get warmer, To little green house gases will allow the heat to escape the planet and thus cool the planet down, thus we must have a "Balance" in between the "Too little and to much" areas.

What happens after this cooling period will end? And we have a crap-load of green house gases stuck in the atmosphere? It may just get hot rather quickly. (Maybe!)


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By zethy on 2/27/2008 12:37:05 AM , Rating: 2
You know what, you are right, i mean measuring CO2 levels is no science, looking at climatic changes and their trends is in no way a science, it just meteorology and atmospheric studies.

you are right again, ice wont melt if it is heated and THEN cooled, it will stay totally solid.
And i mean extreem snowy winters and drought filled summers just mean that countries all around the world will be forced to face flooding and drought in the summer and blizzards in the winter, and what grows in these conditions?
not crops but mosquitos and other disease carrying insects.

you're right global warming is all just a big hoax
and if you werent keen enough to note my sarcasam, well i huess you couldnt notice the problems at hand.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By Ferny on 3/6/2008 11:19:25 AM , Rating: 2
Allow me to shed some light on the problem of letting politicos manipulate environmental science:

DDT has been banned for decades because of the harmful effects it has on species like birds. We now know that bad science was involved in the determination that it was harmful. It actually has been found to be acceptable for use now. Unfortunately, since a ban was placed on it, it is nearly impossible to raise the ban and begin production of it. In Africa alone, tens of thousands of real people of all ages die because DDT can't be used to kill off the insects you mention and eliminate the diseases they spread.

Like something closer to home? How's this:

Remember the big worry that "everyone" had before Climate Change/Global Warming? The hole in the ozone layer? Remember how we eliminated highly efficient refrigerants in order to slow the growth of the ozone hole? We now all use more energy in everything from our homes to our cars to keep things and ourselves cool. Oh yeah... there is no hole in the ozone layer after all.


By PlasmaBomb on 3/13/2008 9:06:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh yeah... there is no hole in the ozone layer after all.


You got a link to support that?


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By jbartabas on 2/26/2008 4:21:47 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Greenhouse gases trap heat, the planet gets hotter, the icecaps melt and we all drown or die from massive heat waves. Haven't you been listening to the rhetoric of the past 20 years?


Greenhouse gases trapping heat is only a component of the system, as important if not more are the feedbacks. The net feedback happen to be globally positive, that's why it gets globally warmer.

quote:
But man-made CO2 doesn't cause the whole planet to cool off. It can't.


Depends on the feedback, the highly improbable scenario of a disruption of global oceanic currents could prove your assumption wrong, at least for a while.

But to come to the point, clearly a long term decreasing global temperature is not what is predicted for climate change, at least under constant solar output. But it remains to be seen if these two conditions are verified; is it a long term trend and is it not related to change in solar output.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/26/2008 5:29:30 PM , Rating: 2
> "the highly improbable scenario of a disruption of global oceanic currents could prove your assumption wrong, at least for a while."

No, not quite. In theory warming can cause circulatory changes that would cause some regions to cool. However, heat can't be destroyed -- a shutdown of circulation means some other region must warm even more to compensate. Greenhouse gases therefore can't cause cooling on a global scale. The heat has to go *somewhere*.

BTW, the second link in the story above contains statements from two prominent climate modelers, who explain how the theory of Thermohaline Circulation Shutdown was debunked. We no longer believe GW can cause cooling in Northern Europe.


By jbartabas on 2/26/2008 6:29:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In theory warming can cause circulatory changes that would cause some regions to cool. However, heat can't be destroyed -- a shutdown of circulation means some other region must warm even more to compensate. Greenhouse gases therefore can't cause cooling on a global scale. The heat has to go *somewhere*.


You're right, the heat is not destroyed. And it does go somewhere, indeed. But you seem to think that the system is frozen (sic!), and think in terms of all other things being equal. But the heat is constantly added and removed to/from the system, and the net balance depends on the state of the system. If you assume one second that a major disruption occurs to the current redistributing the heat, leading to a regional cooling of large part of high and mid-latitudes (that would globally be overcome by a larger warming trend in low latitudes in the first phase, as you rightly point out), and that this cooling is enough to cover large regions with snow & ice after a while, then you have changed your forcings, more energy is reflected to space, and you may have triggered a feedback that will for a while or the long run compensate or invert the effect of increased GHG.

Now I am not saying that this is necessarily a credible scenario, and you pointed out this alternative has been dismissed as very unlikely (and the TH circulation impact would probably not change the global outcome). It is just illustrative of the fact that the direct effect of CO2 is far from being enough to understand the warming, and that feedbacks from the system are the most important and complex part of the climate response to understand.

But the bottom line is that feedbacks as they are known now would not explain a long term global cooling.


By Bill In DC on 2/26/2008 2:29:05 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the concept of facing 'Climate Change' is deceptive as the climate is ALWAYS changing, therefore we are always 'facing Climate Change'. Humans cannot stop climate change. Even if we could the first question that would necessarily be asked is 'What is the optimal climate to change to?'. We don't know the answer to that question and most likely never will.

What this is beginning to show, I think, is that the human contribution to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is not the primary driver of temperature change for the planet. If this is true then the draconian measures to reduce it will be pointless.

Holding up signs that implore politicians to 'Stop Climate Change' are nonsensical.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By jasonalwaysready on 2/26/2008 2:33:15 PM , Rating: 2
it went from global warming to climate change, so that no matter what event happened anywhere on the planet, it can be attributed to anthropogenic GH gas emissions. you people want to believe that humans are destroying the planet so badly, that when slapped in the face with scientific evidence from your own sources, you change the goal posts.

whats causing it? did you even read the article? forces more powerful than the .003% of the atmosphere youre all obsessed with. the sun. it has a lower output. temperatures go down...


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By Bill In DC on 2/26/2008 3:00:42 PM , Rating: 3
Not quite. Changes in radiance of the sun does not explain the changes in temps. Take a look at the work of Dr. Svensmark, Danish Climate Scientist. A good book on his theory is "The Chilling Stars".

The driver is the increased cloud cover caused by more GCR (Galactic Cosmic Rays) allowed into earth's atmosphere by low magnetic activity in the sun. The sun's magnetic activity can shield earth from GCRs. GCRs provide the 'specks' needed to start cloud formation, more GCRs, more clouds, less CGRs, fewer clouds. Estimates are that a change of 2-4% in global cloud cover can foster a 1-3 deg F change in temp. The suns magnetic activity can be tracked by observing the number of sunspots, more sunspots, higher magnetic activity. Prior to 2006 the sun has been VERY active magnetically. Since 2006 (the end of Solar Cycle 23) there have been virtually no sunspots and Solar Cycle 24 is a year overdue. The result is more clouds, lower temps.

This, of course, is a gross simplification of the process. I'd encourage any to explore this theory further.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By rykerabel on 2/26/2008 6:33:51 PM , Rating: 2
um, more clouds = warmer temps overall (heat passes through clouds better from the sun than it dissipates through the clouds out into space)

No clouds in Sahara desert may seem warmer, but remember how cold it gets there at night from the lack of clouds.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By jbartabas on 2/26/2008 6:36:15 PM , Rating: 2
Depends on altitude and type of clouds, they don't have the same forcing and they all suffer from significant uncertainty anyway.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/26/2008 6:46:46 PM , Rating: 2
This is correct. Our current understanding is that high clouds (aka cirrus) exert a net warming effect, whereas low clouds favor cooling.


By MadMaster on 2/27/2008 1:13:31 AM , Rating: 1
The change is difficult to pin down... (There is a large degree of uncertainty associated with clouds).

These two articles might offer some better understanding...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=105

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=110


By jasonalwaysready on 2/27/2008 11:51:47 AM , Rating: 2
i think you have it backwards. high clouds are made of ice, and reflect sunlight, then cooling. lower fluffier clouds are water vapor, and absorb/warm.

clouds also seem to have an effect much like the pupil in the eye. less light and the pupil dilates, letting in more light. warmer temperatures seem to create more high altitude clouds, cooling the planet.


By JethroXP on 2/27/2008 6:33:03 PM , Rating: 3
That's a great book, I finished reading it about 4 months ago. It reads a bit like a college textbook, so if you are looking for a more approachable book on the subject, I also recommend:

Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media
by Patrick J. Michaels

and

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years,Updated and Expanded Edition
by S. Fred Singer

"Meltdown" goes into far more scientific detail than it's title would suggest. It does a great job of presenting the science and the data juxtaposed to how it's actually reported in the press. What it really showed me how to do is to look at these GW stories with a much more critical eye, to look not only at what is being said or shown, but also at how it's presented and what ought to be shown or said but isn't.

For example, why is it that a NY Times story about increasing temperatures in the 20th century includes a graph that only shows temperatures since 1978? Is it because from the 1940's to the 1970's temperatures were actually going down, and so if you start your graph at a known low point then obviously everything after that looks like a more dramatic increase?

And remember those famous graphs from Al Gore's movie showing the high degree of correlation between temperature and CO2 over the past 600,000 years? Ever wonder why he only showed them as two separate graphs so that you had to "eyeball" the correlation? Why didn't he simply superimpose one onto the other so that the relationship would be obvious? Because if he did you'd see that the relationship is the opposite of what he claims, that temperature is actually leading CO2, not the other way around.

What I really liked about "Unstoppable Global Warming" is that every chapter ends with *several* pages of citations so you don't have to take the author's word for anything, you can look up everything on your own. Compare that with the GW Alarmists who want you to accept everything they say at face value, and who also insist that the debate is over and the science is settled. Who sounds more credible, the guy who encourages you to check his work, or the guy who wants to you accept what he has to say and discourages any questions or debate?


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By Misty Dingos on 2/26/2008 2:45:17 PM , Rating: 1
Alright I will correct you. You are wrong. You don’t get to disown the Global Warming crown of thorns. It is yours and Al Gores forever. You should all be made to wear signs that say “I am one of the reactionary dumb asses that believed in Global Warming”.

Every speck of reporting that supports Global Warming (now PC’ed to Climate Change) refers to a dangerous human caused warming trend. If you choose to fantasize differently that is your business. But there are those of us that will remind you of Kyoto and An Inconvenient Truth.

No you crybaby the sky is not falling.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By maven81 on 2/26/2008 3:06:00 PM , Rating: 2
Hold it... where did I say that I believed in global warming, climate change or that nothing is happening for that matter? All I said was that if the crisis of the day is labeled as "climate change" then citing examples of climate change is not proof one way or another.

I think we've barely been able to scratch the surface on something so complex as our climate. But I also think that dismissing various fears out of hand is probably not a good idea.
And for those of you who think it means you're free to drive those SUVs as someone put it, I'm not sure that's a good idea either, since it leads to much more tangible effects, like pollution.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By dlong500 on 2/26/2008 3:39:39 PM , Rating: 2
You are digging a hole that you'll never get out of. Just because some people want to start calling global warming "climate change" doesn't mean it changes any of their beliefs. The whole point of the global warming crowd was to say WE are to blame for temperature rises. Just because they have started to substitute climate change for warming doesn't mean they have changed any of their science or presuppositions. The basics of greenhouse gases NEVER mean cooling on a global scale, so to claim that WE have something to do with cooling because of carbon emissions is utter nonsense. Some others have already pointed this out but you didn't bother to notice that.

You can't disqualify an article that is just listing facts and science showing a particular trend. A "label" as you call it doesn't mean anything. It is the science and hard facts that mean everything. The global warming crowd never could get their science straight and now they are just trying to mince words to confuse people. The sad thing is that people like you show that it is still working. They say "climate change", and so you think any climate change is not "proof one way or another". Don't be an idiot. This article CLEARLY presents facts and science that don't align with anthropogenic global warming (or climate change for that matter).


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By wildlifer on 2/27/2008 6:49:44 AM , Rating: 2
It actually should be called climate destabilization.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By NikFromNYC on 2/27/2008 5:57:41 PM , Rating: 2
"It actually should be called climate destabilization."

You may have single-handedly just triggered the end of civilization. In the beginning was the word. If the media gets a hold of this phrase, suddenly this whole field becomes owned by the statisticians, and their political movement would be much harder to contain than showing children direct graphs of sun spots vs. the temperature of the Arctic which show that the sun tracks the temperature exactly whereas CO2 tracks it not at all:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/16905282@N05/22963936...


By wildlifer on 2/28/2008 4:56:52 AM , Rating: 2
Go learn something about orbital and axial forcings before you spout that Sunday school nonsense that "It's just the sun."

Not to mention, the solar trend has been opposite of what's needed to explain 20th Century warming. And it's bottoming out, and delay in increasing is why all the deniers are now screaming "the Ice Age is coming," just because January was cold.
In the meantime, in the eastern US, we've got early migrations causing bottlenose dolphin and harbor porpoise to cross paths they normally wouldn't - causing the deaths of harbor porpoises. Amphibians and reptiles are courting at least a month ahead of schedule ... but okay January was cold.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By datashark on 2/26/2008 2:48:49 PM , Rating: 2
Will Al give his nobel prize back now?
I said this day would come to all the local Global idiots in my area.


By dave4555 on 2/26/2008 8:03:56 PM , Rating: 2
Al will return his Prize about the same time Arafat does.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By Thomas007 on 2/26/2008 3:04:12 PM , Rating: 2
For a telling tale look at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/jouzel2007/fig... . Note, that the top graph is expanded out. If you examine this you will see global cooling and warming of the past. Also, if you look carefully you will notice a fairly regular pattern. In addition, you will notice that in geologic terms we are nearing the end of a warming cycle but , also note some warming trends were interrupted. Then, go to here, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleo... and look at that graph, as you can see we are in the warming stage. In addition, by now you should have noticed it was much warmer in the past, and cooler. More, then likely it has to do with solar activity. So how does one explain all those peaks before we were emitting CO2 into the atmosphere?


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By treehugger on 2/26/2008 3:36:54 PM , Rating: 2
I switched over to those cute, squiggly little fluorescent bulbs just about a year ago...coincidence?


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By Misty Dingos on 2/26/2008 3:53:28 PM , Rating: 3
You alone have saved the planet. You are to be congratulated. We thank you for your service to the planet.

Would some one please notify Al Gore and the UN please!

I am afraid though that you will have to be arrested for increasing our dependence on mercury. Mercury which is a known carcinogen and environmental pollutant. Just ask the salmon, they are not happy. And neither are the grizzly bears, which eat the salmon tainted with your mercury.

Do not be surprised when a seven foot tall grizzly bear knocks on your door and smacks you in the head with a dead fish.


By MadMaster on 2/27/2008 1:05:04 AM , Rating: 2
But wait, there's more!

Eh, I'm too lazy to explain...coal is fulla mercury...

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


By DrJDoom on 2/27/2008 10:59:10 AM , Rating: 2
Mercury is worse than that, it causes drain bamage. I'm stocking up on tungsten filament builbs before the government tells me they are illegal.

I have known for some time this "arguement" is total BS. Anyone who has ever applied for a government science grant understands what is going on. The probelm starts with science becoming "sexy" and our wonderful media outlets insisting on doom and gloom scenarios.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By Pooch on 2/26/2008 7:04:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the debate over the past few years shifted from "we're facing global warming" to "we're facing climate change"?


Okay. You are wrong.

How about you actually turn on a TV or read a newspaper or magazine? Most of the liberal sheep still refer to this phenomenon as 'global warming.'

If anything, the idiots have just tossed the term 'man-made' in front of 'global warming.'


By Gladshiem on 2/26/2008 7:42:40 PM , Rating: 2
Oh come on! Global Warming was nothing more than a concept to market goods and to influence political change. It has been very effective and generated a lot of money for the businesses that sell those types of goods. Now real data is being collected that casts doubt on this well executed concept.

Now the concept has changed from GW to Climate Change (CC). The real facts on this new concept relies on casting more fear than GW by using any natual disaster that occurs. I'm all for having a cleaner environment and conserving energy but having it forced on me for no other REAL reason than to put money into the pockets of some "environment friendly" industry that realing could care less about mother earth is wrong.

I'd like to caution all the politicians out there... Remember we invaded Iraq because we THOUGHT Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. When we didn't find any WMD there was a huge backlash. What do you think the backlash will be when we get smart enough to realize that all the GW and CC is hogwash. Think about it! Your ignorance and best intentions will not save you.

Climate change! Ha. The climate is always changing. The earth is alive in a way we may never fully understand. Let's do our best to keep her clean and utilize her gifts to their full worth. Stop marketing products and forcing political changed based on fear tactics.


By hobbes7869 on 2/26/2008 8:05:23 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand all the hubbub regarding global warming and climate change, either warmer or cooler. It has been occuring for the past 4 plus billion years, and will continue to do so. Humans have no impact, neither do cattle, hummers nor anything else human made. ( i know cattle arent man made, but we do raise them in a manner that some hippies claim is not natural, whatever, they tast good, but i digress)
Much larger events are causing it, and it really isnt anything to get our undies in a bunch over


By arazok on 2/26/2008 8:12:00 PM , Rating: 2
I was wondering what the eco nuts would say once their BS was shown to be nothing but.

Now I know.

In 6 months some jerk off is going to create a computer model that shows CO2 can cause both warming AND cooling, and tell us that we need 6 trillion in carbon taxes to prevent 'climate oscillation'.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By rrstubbs on 2/26/2008 11:08:12 PM , Rating: 2
Milankovitch cycles are the collective effect of changes in the Earth's movements upon its climate, named after Serbian civil engineer and mathematician Milutin Milankovic. The eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit vary in several patterns, resulting in 100,000 year ice age cycles of the Quaternary glaciation over the last few million years. The Earth's axis completes one full cycle of precession approximately every 26,000 years. At the same time, the elliptical orbit rotates, more slowly, leading to a 21,000 year cycle between the seasons and the orbit. In addition, the angle between Earth's rotational axis and the normal to the plane of its orbit changes from 21.5 degrees to 24.5 degrees and back again on a 41,000 year cycle. Currently, this angle is 23.44 degrees and is decreasing.

The Milankovitch theory of climate change is not perfectly worked out; in particular, the largest observed response is at the 100,000 year timescale, but the forcing is apparently small at this scale, in regard to the ice ages. Various feedbacks (from carbon dioxide, or from ice sheet dynamics) are invoked to explain this discrepancy.

Milankovitch-like theories were advanced by Joseph Adhemar, James Croll, Milutin Milankovic and others, but verification was difficult due to the absence of reliably dated evidence and doubts as to exactly which periods were important. Not until the advent of deep-ocean cores and the seminal paper by Hays, Imbrie and Shackleton "Variations in the earths orbit: pacemaker of the ice ages" in Science, 1976, did the theory attain its present state.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By Neal Asher on 2/27/2008 9:18:53 AM , Rating: 2
Creationism was changed to Intelligent Design and so, in the new religion Global Warming became Climate Change. And all done for the same reason: to rebrand doctrine and try to find another route to shove it down out throats.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By janmatch on 2/27/2008 11:22:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Creationism was changed to Intelligent Design and so, in the new religion Global Warming became Climate Change. And all done for the same reason: to rebrand doctrine and try to find another route to shove it down out throats.


True. And as you no doubt know, many scientists (including some Christians who are scientists) have labeled the "young-earth-creationists" (YECs) and the "ID-Movement" leadership as "liars for Jesus".

That's like the pot calling the kettle black:

The “Reverend” Sir John Houghton , former head of the UK Meteorological Office, Publisher of Al Gore’s book on GW and Former Co-Chair of the IPCC , said this:

“Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen”

“.. human induced global warming is a weapon of mass destruction at least as dangerous as chemical, nuclear or biological weapons that kills more people than terrorism.” ~ John Houghton Monday July 28, 2003

Some would call that "lying for Jesus", too -- with malice aforethought. No Kidding. (See "Court case" in my next post)

*

NY Times Friday 11 March 2005:
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.c...

“.. Mr. Cizik said he had a “conversion” on climate change so profound in Oxford that he likened it to an “altar call,” when nonbelievers accept Jesus as their savior. Mr. Cizik recently bought a Toyota Prius, a hybrid vehicle. “ Richard Cizik is the Vice president of governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals

Oct. 2006:

“..Cizik dates his “conversion” to 2002, when evangelical left activist Jim Ball of the “What Would Jesus Drive” anti-SUV campaign “dragged” him to Oxford, England, for a global warming summit featuring scientist and Christian thinker John Houghton. “I had, as John Wesley would say, a ‘warming of my heart,’ Cizik recalls. “A conversion to a cause which I believe every Christian should be committed to.”

After his Oxford conversion, Cizik returned home, sold his gas guzzler, bought a Prius, and renewed his interest in recycling. He notes that evangelicals comprise 40-50 percent of the “Republican base” and Republican politicians, who “have stymied action on climate change, will “have to listen” if evangelicals become as passionate as Cizik is about climate change.

Promoters of The Great Warming are hoping that other evangelicals will have dramatic conversions to the global warming cause like Cizik. No doubt, many of these new enthusiasts for the planet are full of passionate sincerity. But some seem to see acceptance of disastrous scenarios of global warming, fueled exclusively by human activity, as almost an article of faith, transcending need for logical argument. For them, it has become intrinsically a struggle between noble friends of the earth and wicked allies of the fossil fuels industry. They have adopted climate activism as a new crusade.

Evangelicals are more famous, or notorious, for preaching about the impending End Times. At least that old kind of preaching pointed listeners towards repentance...and God. This new mode of climate revivalism points evangelicals towards a very differently kind of imagined apocalypse, in which the solution is not divine intervention but increased government regulation, reduced standards of living, diminished national sovereignty, and enhanced powers for international bureaucracies. That Old Time Religion now looks more appealing, because it involves God.

http://vacoalblog.blogspot.com/2006/10/boo-just-in... Frontpagemag.com.


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By janmatch on 2/27/2008 11:26:07 AM , Rating: 2
Court Case:

*

The court case that was brought against Al Gore and his global warming propaganda film in Great Britian, was by Stuart Dimmock - a father of two sons at state school and a school governor . The "ruling" had to do with Al and his friends' attempt to "politically indoctrinate" little children in school - which is illegal.

The "scientific errors" they discovered in Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" (AIT), are a side issue , and were not the basis for the case brought against the propagandist, Al Gore.

The judge found , among other things, that in Al Gore's movie , AIT, "science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme. ..." [See details below]

England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/228...
Case No: CO/3615/2007 Hearing dates: 27, 28 September, 1, 2 October 2007 Before: MR JUSTICE BURTON

Stuart Dimmock - Claimant -- Mr Paul Downes and Miss Emily Saunderson (instructed by Malletts) for the Claimant

-vs-

Sec. State for Education and Skills - Defendant -- Mr Martin Chamberlain (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) for the Defendant

[Judge] Burton:

Stuart Dimmock is a father of two sons at state school and a school governor. He has brought an application to declare unlawful a decision by the then Secretary of State for Education and Skills to distribute to every state secondary school in the United Kingdom a copy of former US Vice-President Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth ("AIT"), ..... I have had very considerable assistance from both the very able Counsel, Paul Downes for the Claimant and Martin Chamberlain for the Defendant, and their respective teams.

The context and nub of the dispute are the statutory provisions described in their side headings as respectively relating to "political indoctrination" and to the "duty to secure balanced treatment of political issues" in schools, now contained in ss406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996, which derive from the identical provisions in ss44 and 45 of the Education (No 2) Act 1986. ...

I viewed the film at the parties' request..... It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – ... – but that it is a political film.. . Its theme is not merely the fact that there is global warming,... but that urgent, and if necessary expensive and inconvenient, steps must be taken to counter it, many of which are spelt out.

Paul Downes... has established his case that the views in the film are political by submitting that Mr Gore promotes an apocalyptic vision, which would be used to influence a vast array of political policies, which he illustrates ...:

(i) Fiscal policy and the way that a whole variety of activities are taxed, including fuel consumption, travel and manufacturing …

(ii) Investment policy and the way that governments encourage directly and indirectly various forms of activity.

(iii) Energy policy and the fuels (in particular nuclear) employed for the future.

(iv) Foreign policy and the relationship held with nations that consume and/or produce carbon-based fuels."

... the Defendant, does not challenge that the film promotes political views. ................."

In the DEFRA [the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] leaflet ... there was this one sentence summary:

"Mr Johnson said that influencing the opinions of children was crucial to developing a long term view on the environment among the public."

After the pre-action correspondence from the Claimant, and on the very day the Judicial Review Claim Form was issued, a somewhat differently worded news release was issued by the Defendant dated 2 May 2007:

"....This pack will help to give young people information and inspiration to understand and debate the issues around climate change..."

The explanation for the distribution to all schools is now given in these proceedings in the witness statement of Ms Julie Bramman of the DES:

"8. …I should say at once that it was recognised from the start that __parts of the Film contained views about public policy__ and __how we should respond__ to climate change. The aim of distributing the film was not to promote those views, but rather to present the science of climate change in an engaging way and to promote and encourage debate on the political issues raised by that science."

...the meaning of partisan, as in partisan political views: ... [See "Partisan" in my next post]


RE: Global warming or climate change?
By janmatch on 2/27/2008 11:26:41 AM , Rating: 2
Partisan

... Mr Downes pointed to dictionary definitions suggesting the relevance of commitment, or adherence to a cause. In my judgment, the best simile for it might be "one sided". Mr Downes , in paragraph 27 of his skeleton argument, helpfully suggested that there were factors that could be considered by a court in determining whether the expression or promotion of a particular view could evidence or indicate partisan promotion of those views:

"(i) A superficial treatment of the subject matter typified by portraying factual or philosophical premises as being self-evident or trite with insufficient explanation or justification and without any indication that they may be the subject of legitimate controversy; the misleading use of scientific data; misrepresentations and half-truths; and one-sidedness.

(ii) The deployment of material in such a way as to prevent pupils meaningfully testing the veracity of the material and forming an independent understanding as to how reliable it is.

(iii) The exaltation of protagonists and their motives coupled with the demonisation of opponents and their motives.

(iv) The derivation of a moral expedient from assumed consequences requiring the viewer to adopt a particular view and course of action in order to do "right" as opposed to "wrong."

This is clearly a useful analysis.

".... What is forbidden by the statute is, as the side heading makes clear, "political indoctrination" . If a teacher uses the platform of a classroom to promote partisan political views in the teaching of any subject, then that would offend against the statute.

[...]

The Film

I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:

i) "... science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme. ..."

The Errors [38 found - only 9 focused on for brevity - are snipped here]

The Guidance

"... in order to establish and confirm that the purpose of sending the films to schools is not so as to "influence the opinions of children" (paragraph 7 above) but so as to "stimulate children into discussing climate change and global warming in school classes" (paragraph 6 above) a Guidance Note must be incorporated into the pack, and that it is not sufficient simply to have the facility to cross-refer to it on an educational website.....

... it is noteworthy that in the (unamended) Guidance Note there is no or no adequate discussion at all, either by way of description or by way of raising relevant questions for discussion, in relation to any of the above 9 'errors', the first two of which are at any rate apparently based on non-existent or misunderstood evidence, and the balance of which are or may be based upon lack of knowledge or appreciation of the scientific position, and all of which are significant planks in Mr Gores's 'political' argumentation. ..."

"...One particular change in the section on "Citizenship: Planning a whole day event on climate change" is of some significance:

"..... Invite in a guest speaker to go over the issues raised across the day and discuss solutions … But please remember that teaching staff must not promote any particular political response to climate change and, when such potential responses are brought to the attention of pupils, must try to ensure that pupils are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views."

The _amended_ Guidance Note contains in its introduction a new and significant passage:

"[Schools] must bear in mind the following points

* An Inconvenient Truth promotes partisan political views (that is to say, one sided views about political issues)

* teaching staff must be careful to ensure that they do not themselves promote those views;

* in order to make sure of that, they should take care to help pupils examine the scientific evidence critically (rather than simply accepting what is said at face value) and to point out where Gore's view may be inaccurate ...

* where the film suggests that views should take particular action at the political level (e.g. to lobby their democratic representatives to vote for measures to cut carbon emissions), teaching staff must be careful to offer pupils a balanced presentation of opposing views and not to promote either the view expressed in the film or any other particular view.

"...I am satisfied that, with the Guidance Note, as amended, the Defendant is setting the film into a context in which it can be shown by teachers, and not so that the Defendant itself or the schools are promoting partisan views contained in the film , and is putting it into a context in which a balanced presentation of opposing views can and will be offered. There is no call for the Defendant to support the more extreme views of Mr Gore – ..."


By janmatch on 2/27/2008 1:19:33 PM , Rating: 2
Sunday, July 02, 2006

"If Only Mustachiod Homophobic Terrorists Drove Gas-Guzzling SUVs into Buildings In San Francisco, The Left Would See the Threat." - Gagdad Bob
http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/search?q=gaia

Robert W.Godwin [Gagdad Bob], Ph.D is a clinical psychologist whose interdisciplinary work has focused on the relationship between contemporary psychoanalysis, chaos theory, and quantum physics.


By buster1 on 2/27/2008 12:43:29 PM , Rating: 2
Here's a NASA graph depicting solar activity over the past 400 years. Note the high levels of sunspot activity over the past 60 years. Also note the almost non-existent levels of solar activity between about 1650 and 1710. This period is known as the "Little Ice Age":

Yearly Averaged Sunspot Numbers for past 400 years:

http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/images/ssn_y...

From BBC News - 2004:

A new analysis shows that the Sun is more active now than it has been at anytime in the previous 1,000 years.

Scientists based at the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich used ice cores from Greenland to construct a picture of our star's activity in the past. They say that over the last century the number of sunspots rose at the same time that the Earth's climate became steadily warmer.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm

From NASA's Solar and Heliospheric Observatory's "Not So Frequently Asked Questions" section:

Q-Does the number of sunspots have any effect on the climate here on Earth?

A-Sunspots are slightly cooler areas on the surface of the Sun, due to the intense magnetic fields, so they radiate a little less energy than the surroundings. However, there are usually nearby areas associated with the sunspots that are a little hotter (called falculae), and they more than compensate. The result is that there is a little bit more radiation coming from the Sun when it has more sunspots, but the effect is so small that it has very little impact on the weather and climate on Earth.

However, there are more important indirect effects: sunspots are associated with what we call "active regions", with large magnetic structures containing very hot material (being held in place by the magnetism). This causes more ultraviolet (or UV) radiation (the rays that give you a suntan or sunburn), and extreme ultraviolet radiation (EUV). These types of radiation have an impact on the chemistry of the upper atmosphere (e.g. producing ozone). Since some of these products act as greenhouse gases, the number of sunspots (through association with active regions) may influence the climate in this way.

Many active regions produce giant outflows of material that are called Coronal Mass Ejections.

These ejections drag with them some of the more intense magnetic fields that are found in the active regions. The magnetic fields act as a shield for high-energy particles coming from various sources in our galaxy (outside the solar system). These "cosmic rays" (CRs) cause ionization of molecules in the atmosphere, and thereby can cause clouds to form (because the ionized molecules or dust particle can act as "seeds" for drop formation).

If clouds are formed very high in the atmosphere, the net result is a heating of the Earth - it acts as a "blanket" that keeps warmth in.

If clouds are formed lower down in the atmosphere, they reflect sunlight better than they keep heat inside, so the net result is cooling.

Which processes are dominant is still a matter of research.

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/explore/other.html#...

[note: the idea is that increased solar activity keeps away galactic cosmic rays from Earth's atmosphere. GCRs are believed to contribute to the formation of low-level cumulus clouds. These thick low-lying cumulus clouds BLOCK sunlight and act to COOL the planet. So when solar activity is highest, LESS GCRs get through to form the sunlight-blocking clouds, more direct sunlight reaches the Earth's surface AND the planet warms...naturally.-LC]

From The American Geophysical Union (AGU):

"'A systematic change in global cloud cover will change the atmospheric heating profile,'...'In other words, the cosmic ray-induced global cloud changes could be the long-sought mechanism connecting solar and climate variability.' ..."

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0226a.html

Dr Svensmark has written a plain-language book on the same theme, jointly with the British science writer Nigel Calder. Entitled The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, it is published in the UK this week by Icon Books:

www.iconbooks.co.uk/book.cfm?isbn=1-84046-815-7


AGW is a HOAX
By reismc1 on 2/26/2008 6:18:19 PM , Rating: 4
AGW is a complete HOAX predicated on the global redistribution of wealth.
1) The data in the IPCC is useless. This is a policy statement prepared by politicians. They add enough "science" by "scientists" to make it appear credible. These "scientists" were paid by these politicians to produce this policy statement. It you don't see an inherent problem with this, don't bother reading any further.
2) The IPCC report had to be "amended" over and over again. The hockey stick graph has been eliminated, owing to the fact that it was discredited about as soon as it came out. In the beginning there was a statement in the IPCC that there was NO evidence that man was impacting climate change. This was removed as it did not fit their agenda. Several scientists left the panel when they saw the inaccuracies and exaggerations in the report. At least one scientist sued to have his name removed.
3) There are several petitions signed by more than 400 scientists, and thousands of people, that do not agree with the IPCC. There were about 52 "scientists" with the IPCC. There is NO consensus! If you were to poll scientists "anonymously" the vast majority would not agree with the IPCC. It must be anonymous so they won't lose their funding.
4) The models they used do not take in to consideration such things as solar activity, precipitation and cloud cover. The models themselves are not worthy of any consideration with out those three elements. Think about it, the three elements that OBVIOUSLY influence the temperature the most aren't even addressed.
5) Thus, this report is so fundamentally flawed that any true (non government funded) scientist would disregard it. This report is based loosely on "correlation" only. Correlation does not mean causation! There was just an article published that owing to the fact that there are fewer pirates there is global warming, same correlation.
6) AGW doesn’t even pass the most basic “smell test”. CO2 makes up .004% of the atmosphere, there in NO way this extremely small percentage, even if doubled, could impact the temperature as they are inclined to say it “does”.
7) There is NO scientific proof of AGW. There is, however, proof that the increase in CO2 occurs after the warming. This would make much more sense. As the majority of the CO2 on earth is maintained in the oceans, as they warm they release more CO2. If the CO2 caused the warming it would trigger an unstoppable (regardless of what man did) release of CO2 from the oceans in a never ending cycle. As the earth has warmed and cooled repeatedly, we know that this cannot be true.
8) The earth was cooling up until the 70s, right during the midst of historical CO2 production that should not have happened. The earth has not warmed since 1998, right when China and India have come on-line with massive amounts of CO2, this too, should be impossible. 2007 was no warmer. We are having record cold in 2008, record cold last year in the southern hemisphere. AGW doesn't even pass the most basic "smell test". Last years temperatures just wiped out the .7 degree increase.
9) Its called WEATHER. It gets warmer and cooler; the poles have even been known to switch with each other. There have been ice ages, warm periods, and it will continue to be that way. This is the most inane crap that man has ever contrived!
I agree that we all need to be better stewards of the environment, but this is not the way to do it. I was around in the 70s when the next ice age was coming, as I am a climber I couldn't wait...oh well. Maybe now I can get my wish, better get back in shape.




RE: AGW is a HOAX
By wildlifer on 2/26/08, Rating: 0
RE: AGW is a HOAX
By masher2 (blog) on 2/26/2008 8:17:45 PM , Rating: 2
> "The next two, CO2 and CH4 are .06 of the remaining .07 and are responsible for 99.9 percent of radiative forcing."

Just to correct one of the misconceptions in the above post, water vapor -- not CO2 -- is by far the most prevalent greenhouse gas. Most of the total "greenhouse effect" is caused by water vapor, due not only to its much higher volume in the troposphere, but to its stronger IR absorption spectrum.


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By wildlifer on 2/26/2008 8:46:26 PM , Rating: 1
Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing.


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By ed34222 on 2/27/2008 8:14:56 AM , Rating: 2
C02 increases in the last 100 years account for less than 18 millionths of a degree of AGW (much less when you take convection into account), so what about the other 99.99 percent of it?


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By wildlifer on 2/27/2008 1:49:00 PM , Rating: 2
Not according to any of the NASA/GISS/other data I've seen. Even denialist Roger Pielke Sr. attributes 26% of 20th Century warming to CO2.


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By dever on 2/27/2008 4:58:44 PM , Rating: 2
You can stop with your Nazi references.


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By wildlifer on 2/27/2008 5:45:00 PM , Rating: 2
Who said anything about Nazis, I surely didn't.


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By Merlyn2220 on 2/27/2008 8:50:35 PM , Rating: 2
The word "denier" is a direct explicit reference to being a "Holocaust denier." Everyone dealing with this topic is well aware of this reference. So leave off the Nazi references, thanks.


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By wildlifer on 2/28/2008 5:14:25 AM , Rating: 2
Hogwash.
I'm not going to throw away a perfectly good English word to describe a position just because some PC Nazi doesn't like that the word has had other uses.


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By dever on 2/28/2008 3:02:24 PM , Rating: 2
I recognize that "denier" is a perfectly legitimate word, with a clear definition. However, the connotation is also been made clear in this context. Using the term is just a lazy person's way of distracting from reasoned and clear arguments by reverting to moronic name calling (kind of like I just did). How's that for PC?


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By wildlifer on 2/28/2008 5:36:13 PM , Rating: 2
Other people's "connotations" are their problem, not mine. If someone says AGW is a hoax etc, they deny it exists so they are deniers, not skeptics.


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By Neal Asher on 3/3/2008 2:21:32 PM , Rating: 2
Aw ... let the watermelon use 'denier'.


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By Merlyn2220 on 3/3/2008 10:16:24 PM , Rating: 2
Waving your hands around and bowing to the altar of Al Gore, blindly claiming that AGW exists in the face of tons of contradictory evidence is very much like religion. I dub thee a fanatic. That has some pretty bad connotations too. How do you like those connotations? I'm about as anti-PC as they come, but given the abundant explicit Nazi references with the word "denier," it's about the same as idiots talking about lynching in reference to Tiger Woods. What a bunch of morons. Anyway, if you've been in the debate long enough you'll know what the word explicitly means. If not, then you are apparently ignorant. Which might be true anyway.


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By ed34222 on 2/27/2008 9:28:35 AM , Rating: 2
Many of the Scientists whos' data were cited in the IPCC reports have said that it doesn't point to AGW.

The IPCC is primarily political in nature.

It's summaries seem to ignore data thats inconvenient.

And, Yes I have read them: lots of nice charts, graphs, and authoritative rhetoric.

I have also looked into the data myself.
Google searching turns up a lot.
Experiments intended to show CO2 as a GW gas: they took concentrated CO2, and compared it to the same quantity of air; and, aimed a light at them ... the CO2 got 20% warmer than the air.
Measurements of CO2 in the troposphere: numbers varied depending on the source ... the #1 source use by most was at an active Hawaiian volcano (when looking for natural CO2 sources I found that volcanos where way up there - we are talking mass quantities, trees dying because of too much CO2 being produced by the volcano, for example, that would be like a person dying from too much oxygen).
One of the claims is that in the past hundred years CO2 has gone up by 180ppm and that because mankind has produced so much CO2 in the last hundred years it must be our fault.
Fact is most of the CO2 we produce gets consumed by trees and plants.
Must of our highways are lined with trees and/or plants. In the case of sea side factories, the green living things in the water will consume most of the CO2 produced.
CO2 is heavy and tends to sink.
As for the 180ppm of CO2: Even if we go with that; and, the CO2 as an AGW gas guess what we get ...
If the net temp increase was .5 degrees, 20% of .5 is .01 times 180 parts/per 1,000,000 - take a way some zeros 18/100,000, 1.8/10,000, .18/1000, .018/100, .0018/10, .00018 - now finish the multiplication - .01 * .00018 = .0000018 degrees difference accounted for by CO2 (assuming no wind to reduce its surface temp); or, in other words, with CO2 at 200ppm the effect would have been 20 millionths of a degree, and now we would be 38 millionths of a degree.
Also found out that O2 has nearly the same absorption spectra as CO2.
Thats right, based on Absorption spectra, O2 (Oxygen) is a Green House Gas.
Ok, lets do some more math (sorry if your head hurts): O2 21% of air * 20% (same spectra probably same AGW effect) = 4% (rounded down for you) * .5 degrees=.02 degrees impact. So thats .02 degrees of impact for O2 and .0000038 degrees impact for current levels of CO2.
If your not worried about the small number for O2, then why would you be worried about the multiple orders of magnitude smaller number for CO2?

Conclusion: if hundreds of scientists (listed as members of the IPCC) are not complete idiots; then the IPCC is not speaking for them.

By the way, as early as the beginning of the 15th Cen they were finding new ways to prove the sun revolved around the earth and that the earth was the center of the universe ... Ah Ha that means we are the center of the universe ... Who needs facts?


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By dever on 2/27/2008 5:08:23 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps my complete ignorance is in play here, but please explain further your reply to #7.

Given that...
a) historically, rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature, and drops in CO2 follow drops in temperature (meaning that temperatures had decreased for 600-800 year spans while CO2 levels continued rise, before following the temperature back down)
b) temperature and CO2 levels have both fluctuated considerably throughout history

How is runaway CO2 induced warming possible?


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By wildlifer on 2/27/2008 6:08:11 PM , Rating: 2
Historically, drops in CO2 most often preceded drops in temp.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_cl...


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By Merlyn2220 on 2/27/2008 8:11:35 PM , Rating: 2
If you are going to quote a study that goes clearly against the body of evidence, you might want to at least look at the chart and see if it supports your assertion. Look at the incredibly high CO2 concentrations from the Cambrian period. At that point CO2 concentrations were over 18 TIMES as high as today. Also note that over the chart's period there is NO CORRELATION of CO2 and temperature. This much is visually obvious and doesn't require any statistical analysis. Just look at the period from ~325 to ~375...basically constant temperature yet a sixfold drop in concentration from 2500ppm to ~400ppm. Thanks for making our point for us. Excellent job.


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By wildlifer on 2/28/2008 5:47:00 AM , Rating: 2
What were the aerosol levels in the Cambrian? Orbital forcing in the Cambrian?
I count at least two times CO2 drops before temps (Devonian and Jurassic) and once it increased before temps (Permian).

But, contrary to the deniers, warmers, and even skeptics such as me, accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that the qualities that make it a greenhouse gas are the same ones which can cause it to cause temps to increase. We also recognize, contrary to the deniers, that there isn't just a single factor which causes climate variations, that it is indeed a whole lot more than just the sun.

If you want to deny CO2 has warming potential, you're denying basic physics and the fact there's a reason it's called a greenhouse gas.


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By dever on 2/28/2008 3:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
Somehow, over and over, you miss the point entirely. I haven't heard anyone stating that CO2 has no "warming potential." I think the major concern with most, is the social deception surrounding a gas that occurs in much higher quantities through nature than through human outputs. And the way that special interest groups employ psuedo-science to strong-arm the public by fostering government regulation.


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By wildlifer on 2/28/2008 5:39:26 PM , Rating: 2
You need to examine the concept of isotopes and atmospheric CO2.


RE: AGW is a HOAX
By Merlyn2220 on 3/3/2008 10:58:00 PM , Rating: 2
Okay since you apparently are impervious to logical arguments, here's a short summary of your plot which you claim supports the effect of CO2 on global temperature on a geologic timescale:

In the Cambrian period CO2 varied by a factor of two with no effect on temperature.
In the end of the Ordovician period the temperature dropped by a giant margin and then millions of years later went right back up, with no appreciable change in CO2.
In the Silurian period the CO2 dropped by a factor of two, then went up by nearly a factor of two, with no effect on CO2.
At the end of the Devonian period, the CO2 dropped from 4000 to about 200 (similar to current levels) and yet the temperature remained nearly the same for nearly 100 MILLION years before entering another low area, and CO2 was essentially constant for at least 25 MILLION years before the temperatures plummeted.
In the sole era where you could say CO2 and temperature might be related, the end of the Permian age indicates temperature started rising probably well before CO2.
In the Jurassic era CO2 goes from 1000 to nearly 3000 and the temp is unchanged.
Then thru the Cretacious and Teriary eras the CO2 drops from nearly 3000 to about 300 and the temperature remains constant for about 100 MILLION years.

So we have 7 eras where it is obvious that temperature and CO2 are NOT related, and one where they might be. Excluding your other factors (aerosols and Orbital forcing (sorry but that's on much, much smaller timeframes)) it's pretty evident that there is no direct correlation.

You want to call the Devonian drop CO2 before temperature. Fine. So the timescale for correlation of a drop in CO2 from 4000 to 300 is in the range of 100 million years. So the corresponding increase from 300 to 4000 should take another 100 million years. I'll stop buying carbon credits now.

Anyway, the above that you linked to is not a good plot to hang your hat on. Sorry if this was overly complicated, I know that might be difficult to follow.


What, more lies from the deniers?
By NonHomogenized on 2/26/2008 5:43:10 PM , Rating: 2
Say, I just went to check the data, since the source for the claims is a global warming denier, and well, I decided to check GISS first. Guess what I found.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

Why is DailyTech uncritically repeating lies?




RE: What, more lies from the deniers?
By NonHomogenized on 2/26/2008 5:48:22 PM , Rating: 2
wait, I see, it's only this January that's colder. Not exactly a trend. I get it, 20 years of warming isn't a trend, but 1 month of unusually low temperatures is.


RE: What, more lies from the deniers?
By CaptainPatent on 2/27/2008 2:40:04 PM , Rating: 2
um, actually that's the annual global mean temperature and it's for the period of Jan07 to Jan08 so it would be a full year. Not a wholly significant time period in itself, but (potentially) with a significant variation in temperature.

I'm never one to jump to conclusions so I'm neither on the "global warming is happening" bandwagon or the "global warming isn't happening" bandwagon. It will be interesting to see more data as it comes in though and if this is a fluke on an upward trend or the beginning of a long downward trend.


RE: What, more lies from the deniers?
By NonHomogenized on 2/27/2008 9:51:34 PM , Rating: 2
Did you see what I linked to in my first post? 2007 was the second warmest year on record.


RE: What, more lies from the deniers?
By CaptainPatent on 3/1/2008 6:59:49 PM , Rating: 2
um, yeah I did read that. You basically said the data point was a lie based somehow of of 2007 information.

I still fail to see how information from 2k7 makes a 2k8 data point a like in any way shape or form.


By jbartabas on 3/2/2008 1:54:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You basically said the data point was a lie based somehow of of 2007 information.


He's not saying that Jan 2008 data is a lie. On the contrary, he's saying that suggesting that there is a trend based on jan 08 data only is a lie. He is wrong when he's saying that Jan 08 only is colder than the previous year. But his underlying point is correct, roughly half (depending on data) of 2007 was warmer than 2006 (hence the reference to 2007 average). The fact remains that statements like
quote:
Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

quote:
The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time.

are incorrect. Not even mentioning the now erased statement about " eras[ing] nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years ".

Apparently M. Asher failed to realize that the zero on the graph is not the level 100 years ago, but the average over a reference period post WWII (that varies with climate centers, but in no way goes back to 1900 or 1908 for what matters).

The delta in T from the last 100 years (based on the month of Jan only, so comparing Jan 1908 to Jan 2008)is +0.53degC (GISS) or 0.516 degC (Hadley).

The delta in T from averaged over 1908 and 2007 (excluding Jan 2008 only, but accounting for the decrease in the previous months) is 0.91 degC (GISS & Hadley).

Now to stick to Masher's word, delta T over the last 12 months (Feb 2007-> Jan 08) and corresponding 12 months 100 years ago (Feb 1907 -> Jan 1908) is +0.86degC (Hadley).

Now for full disclosure, it is true that 1908 was in a particularly cold period, but if you take a look at the temperatures anomaly before WWII, they were most of the time less than -0.2 degC (average is -0.34 degC until 1939, STD is 0.19 degC).


By ChronoReverse on 2/26/2008 6:06:33 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure if you read the graphs correctly. The time scales on the graphs in that link are completely different from the ones in the article.

If they're not presenting the same data, it's not going to look the same.

In any case, assuming they really had accurate records from 1880, and IGNORING the issues with the sensors in the recent decades (like having the sensor on a parking lot), the temperature rise over a hundred years is 1 degree according to those graphs.


RE: What, more lies from the deniers?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/26/2008 6:09:43 PM , Rating: 2
The graphic you see on GISS's entry portal is from Hansen, et al. 2007 and is months out of date. The current source data for the Land Ocean Temperature Index is at:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts...


RE: What, more lies from the deniers?
By jbartabas on 2/26/2008 6:43:12 PM , Rating: 2
It still doesn't seem to fit the plot, or I don't get it ... :-(


RE: What, more lies from the deniers?
By MadMaster on 2/27/2008 12:43:47 AM , Rating: 2
Picking data. Interestingly, the links provided don't go back to the actual hadcrut data. Instead, it goes to this website...

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/ja...

Which links data on it's own site...

Here is where you get the actual data sets...

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/

That image still has more red than green...

Again, it's just one month. Not nearly long enough to put any trend up...


By MadMaster on 2/27/2008 12:57:47 AM , Rating: 2
Er, I meant blue.


By porkpie on 2/27/2008 10:26:17 AM , Rating: 2
It's a year, not a month, which you can clearly see from the graph. Stop trying to spread disinformation simply because you don't agree with the results.


RE: What, more lies from the deniers?
By jbartabas on 2/27/2008 5:32:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That image still has more red than green...


It is, if you look at the global T for Jan 2008, it is indeed much less than previous years ... actually so much less that I doubt it's a trend ... but we'll see with next numbers pretty soon.

However, when you plot 2006 & 2007 data (Hadley and GISS, haven't looked at the others), you'll see that only roughly the second half of 2007 is cooler than 2006, and actually only the last few months significantly cooler. That's why the annual mean for 2007 is still larger than the one for 2006(GISS).

Anyway, 2008 is anyway predicted to be cooler than previous years, though above normal (I must have triggered a few heart attack again!).


By MadMaster on 2/27/2008 6:49:32 PM , Rating: 2
Check out this article, talks from less of a subjective 'liberals are evil environmentalists' voice to a more objective scientific voice...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/...


By jbartabas on 2/27/2008 5:45:24 PM , Rating: 2
The annual mean for 2007 in the anomaly data is reported as 0.57oC. The same as in the graph reported by NonHomogenized as far as I can tell.


RE: What, more lies from the deniers?
By CaptainPatent on 2/27/2008 2:31:59 PM , Rating: 2
And if I'm not mistaken, your data does not include any 2008 information for some reason.


RE: What, more lies from the deniers?
By jbartabas on 2/27/2008 3:42:40 PM , Rating: 2
And the data in the current article report January only for 2008, imagine that!


By CaptainPatent on 2/27/2008 3:55:41 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it reports a good chunk of pertinent data and specifically points out the Jan08 data point... little bit of a difference.

I don't know if you read the parent, but he was stating that this article was "uncritically repeating lies" when in fact this is data reported from 4 different climate-based organizations. He then used the GIS 2007 report to "debunk" this particular data point altogether, but as I pointed out, the GIS data does not have any pertinent data to come to that conclusion.

If you want to debate that this is a short time period and could be a fluke I fully respect that. However this is a huge jump in a short period of time. Something that probably shouldn't happen if global climate change was attributed only to human activity (as CO2 levels have been very comparable in the past decade - slight upward trend)

It will be interesting to see where the data points go from here.


By RightBrainGenius on 2/27/2008 5:45:04 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't January the warmest month of the year in the Southern Hemisphere?


Duh.
By mhj0101 on 2/26/2008 5:31:52 PM , Rating: 2
This is not rocket science people. Melt an ice cube in warm water and the temperature of the water drops dramatically. The ice caps melted and so the planet is enjoying a temporary drop in mean temperature. It won't be permanent and when the planet stabilizes it will cook without it's natural air conditioners the cool it.




RE: Duh.
By jbartabas on 2/26/2008 5:35:02 PM , Rating: 2
I think that effect is supposed to be limited to polar regions though. Not sure it could explain a global trend. Any reference on that?


RE: Duh.
By werepossum on 2/26/2008 5:56:34 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
This is not rocket science people. Melt an ice cube in warm water and the temperature of the water drops dramatically. The ice caps melted and so the planet is enjoying a temporary drop in mean temperature. It won't be permanent and when the planet stabilizes it will cook without it's natural air conditioners the cool it.


Obviously. Honestly DT, it's like you don't understand basic science anymore. If it's getting warmer, it's catastrophic anthropogenic global warming due to manmade CO2. If it's getting cooler, it's climate change due to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming due to manmade CO2. If it's getting cooler quickly, it's climate change due to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming due to manmade CO2, and we're about to enter a new ice age in which the polar ice caps melt, cover the whole earth, and then refreeze. And if heaven forbid the temperature stays the same, RUN!

And remember, in an emergency Al Gore can be used as a floatation device.
[/sarcasm]


RE: Duh.
By Jughead131 on 2/26/2008 6:44:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
This is not rocket science people. Melt an ice cube in warm water and the temperature of the water drops dramatically. The ice caps melted and so the planet is enjoying a temporary drop in mean temperature. It won't be permanent and when the planet stabilizes it will cook without it's natural air conditioners the cool it.

Yeah but does water level rise in that glass once the ice is melted?? That is the million dollar question that Al Gore wont answer. Answer is NO. Same result if the entire north polar ice cap melted. Oceans rise 0.0mm.

On to a more logical disection of your argument, which is made by all global warming zealots. They think the earth's climate is a closed system that follows the laws of thermodynamics, but only in a chaos-theory sorta way. "If you fart in Quangzhou a waterspout forms off of Key Largo." If the ice caps melt, we cool off temporarily. Come on... The thermohaline cycle of the oceans move at a snails-pace. Plus, last I checked, cold water sinks due to higher density. So it would cool the bottom of the oceans from 34.4 degrees to, say, 34.4 degrees.

To disagree with you on a final point, this IS JUST AS COMPLEX as Rocket Science and to dimish it to something less is just an emotional plea. You cannot boil your half-witted, Algorian canon into an ice cube in water argument and expect us to agree that the sky is falling.


RE: Duh.
By jbartabas on 2/26/2008 6:57:46 PM , Rating: 2
It seems that you missed the point of sea level rise by GW in general and the component induced by ice melt.


RE: Duh.
By hcahwk19 on 2/26/2008 9:04:10 PM , Rating: 2
If the polar ice caps melting (though they are now re-freezing to levels higher than before) results in a rise in sea level, then why is Venice, Italy, showing record low water levels?
Try a simple experiment. Take a glass. Fill it with ice cubes and then add water up to the brim of the glass. Allow the ice to melt (hell, even cover the glass if you would like to in order to limit evaporation). What will happen?? The water will not overflow the glass. Ever. In fact the water level will lower slightly. Why? Because water expands when it freezes and the ice displaces water. When the ice melts, the displacement eventually stops and the water level lowers slightly.


RE: Duh.
By wildlifer on 2/26/2008 9:23:50 PM , Rating: 2
Not all polar ice is floating in the ocean. A majority of it is on land.


RE: Duh.
By hcahwk19 on 2/27/2008 8:43:53 AM , Rating: 2
Uh, can you please provide some evidence of that?


RE: Duh.
By masher2 (blog) on 2/27/2008 10:31:15 AM , Rating: 2
The majority of such ice is indeed in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. Unlocking all the water in those sheets would have a catastrophic effect on world sea levels.

However, sea-level is rising only 2-3mm/year (~25cm/century), the same rate its been rising for thousands of years, ever since we exited the last Ice Age. Southern Hemisphere ice appears to be growing at present, and Greenland ice shrinking very slowly.


RE: Duh.
By Spivonious on 2/27/2008 10:30:45 AM , Rating: 2
The pole that has the melting ice (North) is entirely over water. The North Pole has zero land underneath it.


RE: Duh.
By EODetroit on 2/27/2008 3:32:29 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong, they aren't counting artic sea ice when they are measure glacier melt. They're counting ice (glaciers) primarily on the continent of Antartica and on Greenland.

Personally I think the sun spots are late in coming, causing the sun to be dimmer than usual, as the cause. Someone should see if the other planets are cooling as well.


RE: Duh.
By Neal Asher on 3/3/2008 2:38:46 PM , Rating: 2
Right, so the ice melts causing the mean temperature of this theoretical glass of water to drop ... enough for it to freeze again? Quite right: Duh.


Adapt to change, don't try to stop it
By judgelog on 2/26/2008 2:46:19 PM , Rating: 2
As a species, we must learn to adapt to climate change. Trying to stop climate change is not only futile, but will result in bankrupting our economy. Only rich, successful societies will be able to adapt. Therefore it is illogical to spend our resources trying to prevent the inevitable, and much better to spend them doing the things we need to survive as a species.

One of the biggest challenges will be to manage and move large quantities of water. We will need to learn to desalinate cost-efficiently, and to be able transport water to areas that need it.




RE: Adapt to change, don't try to stop it
By Tacoloft on 2/26/2008 3:03:10 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed- the climate is cyclic, deal with it- don't try to play mother nature because you will lose to… mother nature.
Let’s address more pressing problems like Genocide- dependency on foreign energies, and help countries and people become self sufficient. I have no problem exploring new sources of energy and cleaner fuel- but don’t feed me any “it will help global warming” garbage, because then a person comes across as uniformed and going with the crowd of fear mongers.


By CriticalMassNotReached on 2/27/2008 5:17:07 PM , Rating: 2
We dont understand what is completely happening other than that the climate is getting hotter and we are contributing to it.

To suggest we can adapt to a problem without understanding the problem is myopic.

Global Warming will result in larger changes than simply water shortages, so having Perrier delivered to your door wont handle other issues. How will the plants and animals adapt to the change? What will this do to our food source? Does Global Warming contribute to more often and greater intensity storms and water damage? How will we resolve this.

Will microorganisms thrive with the Global Warming changes? Is there an increased danger to a massive epademic with the stresses to the plant and animal life to the changing climate?


RE: Adapt to change, don't try to stop it
By dever on 2/27/2008 5:30:50 PM , Rating: 2
Questions are good. Just don't try to use the only entity that can legally carry out it's objectives with lethal force (the goverment) to restrict my freedom based on your "questions."


By CriticalMassNotReached on 2/27/2008 5:59:49 PM , Rating: 2
We know enough to start taking some actions. It actually makes sense to conserve energy and research alternate cleaner fuels from an economic standpoint rather than continue to feed into the monopoly that is the oil companies.

The government has the responsibility to defend and maintain order, even a Libertarian will buy into this. So it is the job of the government to research and take action to preserve our safety and well being.

Case in point - scientific studies found that aerosol was contributing to the ozone layer depletion. Many years followed of people saying it was junk science. Finally things got so bad that is was quite evident that the ozone layer was being damaged and the evidence strongly pointed to aerosol. So governments around the world started to ban aerosol. The US finally saw the light and stepped in line. We can now see that the layer is repairing itself many years after the ban. It will take some time for it to fully repair itself.

And Galileo was once excommunicated for saying the earth revolved around the sun. How little things have changed.


RE: Adapt to change, don't try to stop it
By Merlyn2220 on 2/27/2008 9:41:53 PM , Rating: 2
Outstanding revisionist history, well done! Maybe the fact that the US was one of the FIRST countries to start banning aerosols, one of the original 28 signers of the Vienna Convention, etc. all missed your attention. The effect was first hypothesized in 1973 and confirmed in 1976, followed by a series of studies to determine it's actual atmospheric effect (including studies on determining how it could reach the upper atmosphere to have an effect). It took about 5 years for the data sets to be collected and clear, and another 3 years until the Vienna Convention. But don't let little things like facts get in the way of your obviously well-informed opinions.


RE: Adapt to change, don't try to stop it
By jbartabas on 2/28/2008 11:32:13 AM , Rating: 2
If you're suggesting that the 'ozone layer depletion' did not have its opponents in the scientific community, you obviously are the revisionist, or at least have severe memory issues.

As for the time scale and actions, it's slightly longer and more chaotic that what you suggest:

quote:
On January 23, 1978, Sweden became the first nation to ban CFC-containing aerosol sprays that are thought to damage the ozone layer. A few other countries, including the United States, Canada, and Norway, followed suit later that year, but the European Community rejected an analogous proposal. Even in the U.S., chlorofluorocarbons continued to be used in other applications, such as refrigeration and industrial cleaning, until after the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985. After negotiation of an international treaty (the Montreal Protocol), CFC production was sharply limited beginning in 1987 and phased out completely by 1996.


By Merlyn2220 on 3/3/2008 11:08:37 PM , Rating: 2
I made no such suggestion. All I said was that there was a lot of conflicting evidence. In fact, the first such evidence of a Antartic ozone hole was automatically thrown OUT because the numbers were sooo far away from anything expected, they were assumed to be a measurement error. In fact it took roughly three years to conclude that the data was real and the hole existed. During this giant 10 year period from confirmation of discovery thru banning, there was a lot of healthy arguments in the scientific community...something that is still lacking in today's AGW dispute.

The original poster blamed the US for blocking the ban, but looking at the facts, the US was in the lead in all of the original and most of the subsequent research and was a cosigner of the first and then all of the subsequent deals, over the objections of giant corporations like DuPont, etc. Blaming the US for CFCs is revisionist history, period.


By Tacoloft on 2/27/2008 10:33:19 PM , Rating: 2
Scientific studies are also not self funded. So who funds these studies? Perhaps corporations, governments, and people with an agenda are desperately feigning to keep money flowing into the study of global warming as their livelihoods (paychecks) depend on the lies around the THEORY of human influence on global warming. This is more of the reality that surrounds us presently...sadly.


By dever on 2/28/2008 3:19:01 PM , Rating: 2
Correction: Oil companies (notice the plural) are not monopolies. Government is.


RE: Adapt to change, don't try to stop it
By Tacoloft on 2/27/2008 10:24:51 PM , Rating: 2
"We don’t understand what is completely happening other than that the climate is getting hotter and we are contributing to it."

Nice try- but no I will not accept that statement. You state that "we don't understand" but then you reverse that with "other than that the climate is getting hotter and we are contributing to it." Devious…very devious-- Fascist tactics with wording to get me to agree with your AGENDA.

It is my personal BELIEF that humans are NOT contributing to global warming based on facts. Some of which are shown in "The Global Warming Swindle". Bet you never saw it. Perhaps heard of it and panned it…

Global Warming Swindle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo4R7yXz-90&feature...
This links to Part 1 of 8 clips- watch them they interview scientists and one of the founders of Greenpeace that all say global warming is not being influenced by the human factor showing facts that dispute otherwise. You might just get some insight from some honest scientists for once- not those out to obtain a federal grant under the lie of CO2 global warming.


By jbartabas on 2/28/2008 12:17:22 PM , Rating: 2
Contrary to what you seem to think, you are clearly the one missing a big piece of information. You may want to check that link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warm...

or that one:
http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/channel...

or these excerpts (but you have the references to the whole texts in case you're afraid I misrepresent them):

quote:
In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous—because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important—diametrically opposite to the point I was making—which is that global warming is both real and threatening.
Carl Wunsch

quote:
We have concerns regarding the use of a graph featured in the documentary titled ‘Temp & Solar Activity 400 Years’. Firstly, we have reason to believe that parts of the graph were made up of fabricated data that were presented as genuine. The inclusion of the artificial data is both misleading and pointless. Secondly, although the narrator commentary during the presentation of the graph is consistent with the conclusions of the paper from which the figure originates, it incorrectly rules out a contribution by anthropogenic greenhouse gases to 20th century global warming.
Eigil Friis-Christensen


Fun with CO2
By Salieri on 2/26/2008 6:57:41 PM , Rating: 2
Human activity creates about 7 billion tons of CO2 annually. CO2 deriving from natural causes (plant decay,volanoes, etc.)amounts to 200 billion tons annually.
Source: Bryson,A Short History of the World, p.268.
These are inconvenient FACTS, folks. The implications are obvious.




RE: Fun with CO2
By jbartabas on 2/26/2008 7:01:31 PM , Rating: 2
And what about the natural sinks? Don't forget half of the fact on the road please ... ;-)


RE: Fun with CO2
By MadMaster on 2/27/2008 12:08:03 AM , Rating: 2
Well that's a bad source...

Because it contradicts this...

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

this...
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/a...

this...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

this...
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/in...

So what are you going to say next? We didn't land on the moon? I could find a source telling you that... doesn't make it fact.


RE: Fun with CO2
By masher2 (blog) on 2/27/2008 10:46:09 AM , Rating: 2
> "Because it contradicts this..."

No it doesn't. You have incorrectly read your own sources. Natural production of CO2 is estimated at approximately 120 PgC/year. Current anthropogenic sources total about 6.5 PgC/year, or about 5% of that. (Source: IPCC Third Assessment Report, the Scientific Basis)

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/095.htm

Other estimates in the scientific literature have put the anthropogenic component as low as 2.5%.


RE: Fun with CO2
By MadMaster on 2/27/2008 7:06:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (379ppm) and CH4 (1774 ppb) in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years. Global increases in CO2 concentrations are due primarily to fossil fuel use, with land-use
change providing another significant but smaller contribution. It is very likely that the observed increase in CH4
concentration is predominantly due to agriculture and fossil fuel use. Methane growth rates have declined since
the early 1990s, consistent with total emissions (sum of anthropogenic and natural sources) being nearly constant
during this period. The increase in N2O concentration is primarily due to agriculture.


http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/a...

So your saying that it's coincidence that we start burning fuels and CO2 concentrations went up at the exact same time?

So what are you going to do next? Shoot me and say the gun just 'happened' to fail at the exact time you had it pointed at my head? It was just 'coincidence'.

Hmmm...I wonder if that defense has ever worked in court...


RE: Fun with CO2
By Plasmoid on 2/27/2008 9:02:29 PM , Rating: 2
Your reasoning is a little dangerous. I hold this rock in my hand, and there are no bears around. Surely thats no coincidence, that i just happened to start holding this rock, and no bears.

Taking the big picture, machines aside, plants produce oxygen and animals produce CO2.

The Human population has exploded in the last 200 years. Ok, so all those humans don't produce that significant and ammount of CO2... but humans now eat a lot more Meat. Cows produce massive ammounts of CO2 by eating Carbon based plants. We then use fertilizers to speed up the growth of plants and use them as quickly as possible.

So, take much more extensive use of land, much more of us and a heck of a lot more animals that are known to produce CO2 and you got more CO2 without CO2 burning coming into the matter at all.

That said, i do believe in Global Warming from human activities. I also believe in Global dimming from sulphur and other particles being released into the atmosphere. And yet Global dimming is supposed to be decreasing.

This data does make me think again about Global Warming, but at the end of the day pumping out CO2 day in day out isnt a good thing. Recycling, use of renewable energy and alternatives to oil are all good things even without impending death due to climate change. As long as we dont go nuts and start mass culls of humans and a go mad on nuclear power there is no harm in sticking with the whole global warming is happening mantra.


RE: Fun with CO2
By Merlyn2220 on 2/27/2008 9:57:41 PM , Rating: 2
Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were also about 20 times higher than today...millions of years ago. I guess all those dinosaur SUVs were at fault. Since we have no real idea why levels were so much higher in the past, it's more than a bit risky to attribute changing levels today specifically to us. A wise man once said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Given that the geologic record shows no correlation of global temperature with CO2, and the planet has withstood dramatic nearly 50 fold changes in levels without being affected, it's disturbing that so many people blindly buy into it.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/...


RE: Fun with CO2
By MadMaster on 2/28/2008 1:24:00 AM , Rating: 2
I looked at your link, and the basis of their argument is "the planet had more carbon millions of years ago, so it will be fine."

They are correct, the planet will be perfectly fine with 50000 ppm CO2, the problem is we will not. Our societies are built around climate patterns that have not changed much in the last 10k years (except for small events like major volcanic eruptions which caused small fluctuations and other small events). Climate change (or global warming, whichever term you prefer) effects us.

Oh and that wise man didn't understand statistics. Statistics is a tool, and just like all tools, it has to be respected. It is easy to make mistakes with statistics. Some people take advantage of these pitfalls to further their viewpoint, but in the science world, making 'statistical' mistakes is career suicide... (most people with PH'ds know statistics front to back...)


RE: Fun with CO2
By jbartabas on 2/28/2008 1:06:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were also about 20 times higher than today...millions of years ago.


Actually it is hundreds of millions of years ago.

quote:
Since we have no real idea why levels were so much higher in the past, it's more than a bit risky to attribute changing levels today specifically to us.


You're kidding, right? You can't really ignore what caused the large decrease of CO2 from when its concentration was 20 times higher than today, can you??


RE: Fun with CO2
By Merlyn2220 on 3/3/2008 11:36:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're kidding, right? You can't really ignore what caused the large decrease of CO2 from when its concentration was 20 times higher than today, can you??


This statement makes no sense. My point was that we don't know what caused the drop. We do know that it wasn't the sudden banning of SUVs 550 million years ago. And that the global temperature didn't seem to care, at least on a scale of millions of years. See my post about 2 pages above for a 10 minute graphical analysis if you really want to know what I think about that graph. ;-D Suffice to say there are numerous places where temperature is steady and CO2 changes dramatically, and vice versa.

To MadMaster's point, the main issue with the graph is that not only are CO2 and temperature clearly NOT related, but also that the most dominant average temperature is nearly 10 degrees C above today's temp. You claim that "we will not" be happy with 50,000ppm. Yet there is no geologic evidence that 50,000ppm would cause a giant rise in global temperature. So what evidence do you have that it will? Please don't quote the hockey stick. You do know that we are still in the lower end of the temperature scale in geologic terms. The actual global average temperature in 2001 was 14.52 degrees C. There's another 7.5C before we reach the geologic norm.


RE: Fun with CO2
By wildlifer on 3/4/2008 6:58:37 AM , Rating: 2
What other factors were present when CO2 was allegedly higher?

What were the aerosol levels? In 1991 a series of volcanic eruptions masked GHG forcings for ~3 years.


RE: Fun with CO2
By jbartabas on 3/4/2008 11:38:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
My point was that we don't know what caused the drop.


Then your point should have been: " I don't know what caused the drop."
You may want to take a look at an history of the atmosphere, and particularly focus on the times when photosynthesis massively occurred first in the seas and later on land ...

quote:
To MadMaster's point, the main issue with the graph is that not only are CO2 and temperature clearly NOT related, but also that the most dominant average temperature is nearly 10 degrees C above today's temp.


Temperature and CO2 ARE related, even if the correlation at some period of the Earth evolution is poor because of the importance of other factors. It is now accepted even by AGW skeptics (those with a degree higher than high-school) that there is a feedback in the climate system between both. Now some disagree with the importance of the feedback. But the bottom line is that anybody with an education in climatology knows that CO2 is not the only parameter to account for (yeah, surprise! even AGW proponents account for things like the Sun and orbital parameters, water vapor, clouds, the climate circulation patterns, ... imagine that!).

quote:
You claim that "we will not" be happy with 50,000ppm. Yet there is no geologic evidence that 50,000ppm would cause a giant rise in global temperature. So what evidence do you have that it will?


Even without mentioning the temperature, you may want to check the toxicity thresholds for CO2 ... So no, we wouldn't be happy with 50,000 ppm (even if this level is not really relevant to the discussion).

As for geologic evidence:
* when was the last time atmosphere contain CO2 at 50,000 ppm?
* what do you define as geologic evidence, and in particular, are models geologic evidences?
* According to that definition, is there geologic evidence of CO2 at 50,000 ppm?
* What was the solar irradiance last time 50,000 ppm was reached?


not true
By bonerici on 2/26/2008 11:29:05 PM , Rating: 2
go to the link tht michael asher uses,

There has been no erasure. This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, but it does not “erase” anything. I have suggested a correction to Daily Tech.

If you go to the NASA site, you'll see this:


The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle.


As far as I can tell Michael Asher is a propagandist with an agenda who cherry picks data to prove whatever he wants. Politicized science. It's not real.




RE: not true
By ed34222 on 2/26/2008 11:50:18 PM , Rating: 2
Whats not true?
100 million plus years of the earths temperature going up and down?

CO2 being a trailing indicator?

Experiments showing that 100% concentration of CO2 has less than 1/5th the radiant forcing of a matching quantity of air?

The fact that average global CO2 levels are about or below 300PPM?

That 300/5=60, or in other words that out of the supposed .5 degree of global warming, less than 30 millionths of a degree of that can be attributed to CO2? (I say less; because, convection can be expected to reduce the number considerably.)

Or that the official global temperature has gone down by a noteworthy amount?

If the last one, then please explain why; and, also, why we should care what fraction of a degree the global temp changes by in even any 5,10,20,100,or 1000 year timespan.


RE: not true
By bonerici on 2/27/2008 9:47:49 AM , Rating: 2
by not true i meant mostly that the world is not cooling, that's cherry picked data, it's a lie. as for co2 being a trailing indicator, of course it is . . . when the cause of global warming is mostly plate tectonics, so you have something like the antarctica dropping over the south pole which has caused our current series of ice ages, then when it gets colder, or warmer, the co2 drop follows geology. when the cause is biological, the opposite happens like when the karoo ice age ended, when termites learned how to eat wood and release co2 into the atomsosphere.

I don't think global warming is the most important ecological problem on earth, deforestation, making the ocean a desert, these are more critical right now, global warming is a long term thing, also, is it so bad if the earth is a bit warmer?

I don't like how republicans all get on the bandwagon that the cause is the sun when anyone with a high school diploma can see that the last hundred years has seen a lot of human caused global warming.


RE: not true
By dever on 2/27/2008 5:23:49 PM , Rating: 2
Correction: "anyone with a public school high school diploma, or less"


RE: not true
By masher2 (blog) on 2/27/2008 1:11:00 AM , Rating: 2
> "It is curious, it is unusual, but it does not “erase” anything"

Anthony Watts is a meteorologist, and he prefers exact language. In precise terms, no amount of cooling, whatever the cause or degree can "erase" the historical temperature record. To that end, he suggested the phrasing be that the cooling was "nearly equal in magnitude to the global warming signal". As the average layman doesn't tend to understand verbiage like this, I demurred and simply removed the quote entirely.

However, the data in the article is correct. If you're trying to suggest otherwise, you're far afield. The graphs themselves with the magnitude of the cooling, were annotated by Anthony himself, and taken directly from the four sites in question.


RE: not true
By jbartabas on 2/27/2008 3:58:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anthony Watts is a meteorologist

He's a former television meteorologist ...


RE: not true
By masher2 (blog) on 2/27/2008 9:58:20 PM , Rating: 2
He is the current chief meteorologist for station KPAY, and his weather graphics company supports over 100 other stations.

Please, stop with the ad hominem attacks. You want to attack the message, do so. Not the messengers.


RE: not true
By wildlifer on 2/28/2008 5:19:27 AM , Rating: 2
What's his contribution been to climatology? What original research has he published on climate, as opposed to weather/meteorology?


RE: not true
By jbartabas on 2/28/2008 11:54:18 AM , Rating: 2
From someone using regularly the argument of authority for his 'sources', that's pretty funny.

And I know you don't care about important details and deliberately omit facts on a regular basis, but you should not consider my complement of information as a personal attack to Mr Watts. I find the term meteorologist ambiguous and in need of clarifications.

As for the message, you obviously didn't get it right so you should focus a little bit more on it yourself ...


RE: not true
By masher2 (blog) on 2/28/2008 12:16:00 PM , Rating: 2
The sources in this article are the Hadley Center, NASA, UAH, and RSS. Anthony merely created the graphics.

> "I find the term meteorologist ambiguous and in need of clarifications"

Don't be disingenuous. You didn't request clarification. You provided wrong information, hoping to discredit what you believed to be a source.


RE: not true
By jbartabas on 2/28/2008 12:52:15 PM , Rating: 2
Go back to the first post of this thread, you'll realize that your "source" was identified as Mr Watts, even if you have changed the text since then in view of the embarrassment you have created for Mr Watts. You could have also realized that my statement was concerning your sources in general ...

And no, your sources here are not the Hadley Center, NASA, UAH, and RSS; from the graph you posted to your (mistaken) interpretation of them, everything comes from Mr. Watts' blog, whose doing a much better job at putting things into perspectives than you do btw.

As for the sources you quote, they definitely hold the original data used by Mr Watts and are Mr Watts' sources, not yours. These sources have graph and text which show 2007 being still warmer than 2006 ... big deal for a "Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming". So clearly, these centers are not your sources, I even doubt that you've bothered to get the data to plot them, just for a check ...


RE: not true
By masher2 (blog) on 2/28/2008 1:13:28 PM , Rating: 2
Time to put this silliness to bed. As stated in the original article, the sources are the four major global temperature tracking outlets. The tabular data for each source is below.

Hadley HadCRUT dataset:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/g...
RSS Satellite Data 3.1:
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_mon...
UAH Lower Troposhere Data LT5.2:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglh...
NASA GISS GISTEMP:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts...

Anthony Watts is not the "source" of this data; he merely produced the graphics, a service he's provided for some 20 years now. Veiled ad hominem attacks against him are out of place.


More than climate change
By jrinncs on 2/26/2008 3:29:14 PM , Rating: 2
Global pollution is the issue and climate change is the by-product.
Do you really want to breathe toxic air for the rest of your life? People with heart disease and asthma are profoundly affected by all kinds of particulate
in the atmosphere.Do you want to have finite fossil fuels as your only source of energy?




RE: More than climate change
By dever on 2/26/2008 4:50:19 PM , Rating: 2
Free individuals to make choices regarding consumption and you will have the best and broadest possible spectrum of choices (energy or otherwise) in the market.


RE: More than climate change
By halfabrain on