Increased snowfall and global warming causing present conditions in Antarctica ?
The UNEP is not sounding that dogmatic about this situation.
“There are far fewer observations of sea-ice thickness for the Antarctic than for the Arctic because of the lack of submarine measurements. It is therefore not possible to detect any trends in Antarctic sea-ice thickness over recent decades. The reasons for the very different trends in Arctic and Antarctic sea-ice extent over recent decades are not known at present and resolving this important question is a high research priority. Researchers are examining changes in the atmospheric circulation of the two polar regions as well as changes in ocean circulation.” June 2007. http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/regional-changes-in-arctic-and-antarctic-sea-ice
Precisely.
This is how it works: when ice melts, it’s incontrovertible evidence of “global warming”. When ice thickens, “further research is required”.
Oh, I get it: global warming isn’t just about it being too hot, it’s also about it being too cold. Wonderfully postmodern; must be some sort of Hegelian dialectic fumbling around in there someplace.
Anyway, now that Al Gore has another shiny prize for the display case in his overwatted Tennessee ecopod, his Hollywood friends must really be putting pressure on him to do the obvious and make a sequel: how about “Another Inconvenient Truth: It’s F—ing Freezing Down Here?”
Ever notice how lefties are so adept at selectively choosing the “facts” they want to believe to fit their view of the world.
Lefty dogma:
Socialism is good, ignoring Cuba, USSR, China, North Korea etc.
Gun Control works, ignoring England, Washington DC, Hitler, Castro, Lenin, Mugabe, etc.
Global warming is caused by CO2, ignoring historical data regarding natural cycles, past CO2 data, and so on.
They really are amazing and I’m surprised some enterprising psychologist hasn’t done a doctoral paper on their selective ocular dysfunction. (turning a blind eye to that which they choose to ignore)
FACT: It is human nature to resist change.
FACT: It is the planet’s nature to go right along with it.
So much for the yadda yadda on climate change.
On another somewhat related topic …
I have observed one area where humans usually are willing to accept change and eventually get on board and push it along. That is the change brought about when the capitalist system is introduced to a society plagued with the yoke of socialism or despotism (they go hand in hand actually).
Aside from the climate change circus/industry.
I just head a great interview on the Roy Green Show (corus radio network) about the fact that world poverty and illiteracy has been diminishing at an alarming rate (if you are a socialist) and a wonderfully inspiring rate if you are a free capitalist.
Check out Stephen Moore’s book on the subject … HERE
At this time it is a far important message than the inconsequential truth of climate change.
Another Inconvenient Truth … to go hand-in-hand with the record Southern Hemisphere sea ice growth.
Ulus for Zulus, anyone?
(South African)Cold snap brings 54 new records http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2117319,00.html
The increased snowfall might apply to the height of the antarcti Ice Sheet….but it doesnt apply to the polar sea ice. Thats all about temperature, of the air and the sea and the direction of winds.
So small problem when the sea ice cover gets bigger…..in contrast to the theory of GW.
We have had record minima atr the north after a pretty average or above average maxima.
The main point is things arent as clear and certain as some would have us believe.
“Posted by: Kate at October 14, 2007 4:01 PM”
This is how it works: when ice melts, it’s incontrovertible evidence of “global warming”. When ice thickens, “further research is required”.
Kate you shouldn’t be putting your ignorance out there on display like that. Here is how it really works: A changing climate melts or expands multi year ice. Seasonal ice will give you a measure of local weather, and is not an indicator of climate.. http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/antarctic_snowmelt.html
20 years of data, that’s almost as good as…well…local trends of the climate.
One question, alby.
Name me a time in the earth’s history climate has NOT changed.
Local effect ? So why does the media wail and fear-monger on every T-storm, record high, a melting ice cube ??
Because fear, man-bad sells papers. Bad news bears.
But when the weather/climate doesn’t play fair … Oh well, the easily duped will swallow the local-effect claim.
Who made that famous quip ? There is one born every minute …..
Mammoth bones in the Arctic?? Impossible! The earth has never been warmer than it is today, don’t you know.
The sun will start cooling off in 15 years, then this global warming stuff will go away. My concern is the pollution of water, not the air.
Albatros,
Can you not make point without first insulting your host?
You are a boor and a twit.
Alby:
The southern cap has been getting thicker for several years now. There is not much ‘global’ in this supposedly global warming.
RicardoVerde at October 14, 2007 10:12 PM
Reference?
set you free at October 14, 2007 8:12 PM
“One question, alby.
Name me a time in the earth’s history climate has NOT changed.”
Never.
Now you name me one time in history when it’s changed this quickly that hasn’t been linked to a sudden release of greenhouse gases driving the warmth.
GYM at October 14, 2007 9:04 PM
You want me to “read and larn” what? That Dr. Gray is in denial? That much of his life’s work has been for naught? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/
Though Gore is deserving of his Nobel for spreading the warning of climate change, he is hardly a source of god climate information. To listen to Gore on this subject is scratching a very thin slice of climate science.
More CO2 is a good thing.
Greenhouse Gas Might Green Up The Desert; Weizmann Institute Study Suggests That Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Might Cause Forests To Spread Into Dry Environments http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030509084556.htm
Alby, you shouldn’t put your reading comprehension limitations out there on display like that.
Posted by: alan at October 14, 2007 10:31 PM
Ah yes, greening the desert. But then again it probably won’t. With all this extra CO2, where does the additional nitrogen and phosphorous come from? What about the forests and grasslands today that will be the deserts of tomorrow?
Care to stick your neck out a bit further and back that up Kate? Of course you never do, right?
Albatross, when you’re more certain than the scientists on whom you base your certainty, well, then you’ve crossed into faith.
In recent years, the IPCC has made the following revisions:
1) revoked a “peer-reviewed” graph that purported to show a hockey stick-like rise in temperatures. That was a after a businessman in his spare time found the data was fraudulent.
2) reduced its estimate of the human impact on global warming by 25%
3) reduced its estimate for rising temperatures by a third
4) reduced its estimate for rising oceans by 25%
This comes on top of a failure of the climate modelers’ computer programs to accurately predict temperatures in all the years when they could be actually measured, and the puzzling absence of a rise in global air temperatures.
Do you see how fluid and ambiguous this stuff is? Personally, I was much more predisposed to global warming before the zealots jumped on the bandwagon. I recognize demagoguery when I see it and prefer to let the data provide a more convincing case.
GW -bring it on baby….I git ta grow grapefriuts and palm trees,to thems that usedta rip me off,too bad so sad.mite sell em water since the glaciers are meltin too ,sounds like win ,win
chip
The hockey stick is as valid today as it ever was. The deniers don’t like it, but it’s still in the AR4. So some of the figures have been updated but that’s what further studies do, they advance the understanding of the problem. Even though sea level won’t rise as fast as first thought, they are still rising. Temperatures are still rising but how warm it will get, nobody knows. Global warming is happening and we can’t stop the damage that has already been done. We can however limit further damage.
Kate at October 14, 2007 10:32 PM
Well Kate that has been long enough to consider that to be an official drive by smear.
Good night, coward.
Alba is just flailing and resorting to name calling because he/she’s watching the foundations of her religion come apart at the seams.
Flail away alba, I enjoy watching you come here and desperately try to convert the masses,
and fail miserably.
Google “global warming a hoax” and you’ll get 1.78 million hits. That number is growing by the day.
Alba’s got her work cut out for her.
@alan (Oct. 14th, 10:31 PM):
Your link touched upon something I myself was wondering about. If AGW is so ‘real’, then why haven’t there been any environmental groups buying up tracts of land just above the tree line for a huge tree-planting project? It gibes with other enviro groups buying up land in the rainforest to preserve it, and it would be a “good initiative” by enviro standards.
Just imagine how the greenie crowds would thrill to hear about ABC Group, a non-profit, buying up tracts of just-above-tree-line land in Canada for the purpose of planting carbon-sink trees “when” the tree line moves up to those tracts, so as to reduce the CO2 level in the atmosphere. Such a group could get approval from the provincial land ministries quickly, as they do have the political clout. Also, the greenie part of the media would love the idea. Al Gore might even visit.
I wonder why no such initiative like that has been started up. It’s akin to a prospector hanging around Bay Street bars saying “there’s gold in them thar properties and they ain’t hardly staked,” while not going up and staking claims in that same area.
Again, as many people here have already asked, would someone please provide precise proof of the fact that (in order):
1) The earth is warming /climate changing
2) the warming/change is predominatly caused by man
3) the full extent of this warming/change will be what, precisely (e.g. x degrees, water levels, desertification, etc)??
4) the overall effect of this warming/change is BAD (for man, for earth, etc)
5) man’s effects can be realistically stopped and/or then reversed by man.
I will state now that 1) should be considered an axiom, of course the climate is changing – always has and always will. So I’ll give you this one free…as we knew this before all the noise about AGW started.
For the final step 5, please note that I, or any rationale person, will not accept a solution that involves going back to the stone age (economically, technologically, socially, etc). Hence, the word realistically applies.
Now, you will notice one thing about the order above: each next step (from 1 to 5) is an order of magnitude more difficult to do.
We have barely been able to get a grip on how our climate works for step 1).
Step 2 is in heated debate with no clear winner (scientifically, although the politcal pundits can’t seem to keep quiet). We won’t have a scientifically known answer, with good certainty, for at least several more years.
So unless you are omniscient, would you please stop the BS that we can state that 4) is BAD and then jump straight to step 5. We have much, much more work to do and anyone jumpin the gun now is clearly doing so for Political/personal reasons.
Chip: Do you have a reference for your statements 3 & 4?
Daniel M Ryan: That is probably a good question, although it could be argued that the tree line would expand on its own anyway. Here is my question to you. If people are so certain that temperatures are falling since 1998 and that we are seeing the world enter a cooling phase – why do people not bet on it? Brian has been keeping track of who is willing to bet and who is not over here. http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2005/05/betting-on-global-warming.html
Regards,
John
Even though sea level won’t rise as fast as first thought, they are still rising.
There are no measurements showing the sea level rising. None. It’s all computer modeling.
Google Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner.
Seeing they’ve been taking the measurements for less than 30 years and they’re pretty much statistically the same, I can’t see how you can make much of them.
Plus there were no mammoths in Antarctuca. But why let science and research get in the way of your bias?
Seeing they’ve been taking the measurements for less than 30 years and they’re pretty much statistically the same, I can’t see how you can make much of them.
Plus there were no mammoths in Antarctuca. But why let science and research get in the way of your bias?
Uncle David stands in the prow of Gaia’s Ark while pkggkrg into the wind.
His goateed face is saline-soaked; his specs are caked with salty tears. His heart is broken. Again. The Golden Ham Actor award goes to Suzuki; Best in the Melodrama category.
…-
Canada not listening to leading environmentalist
{…]
Goateed, soft-spoken and avuncular, Suzuki …”
“”We’ve already been here before, and that’s the thing that breaks my heart,”
“”When the ice sheets drop, you’re going to get massive rises in sea levels.” …- http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=fde448ed-dc2a-4d70-801a-2c5f64739a23&k=63704
There are no measurements showing the sea level rising. None. It’s all computer modeling.
Except of course for the tide level measurements. Oh, and of course the satellite measurements. But apart from these, none. Oh, unless you count the measured temperature rise in the ocean and then calculate the thermal expansion.
As always, links available upon request!
reagrds,
John
biff at October 15, 2007 1:02 AM
You should learn how Google does it’s searches. Try it with the asterisks and when you are done that search just global warming, you’ll get 87 million hits.
Googled as of 09:00 this morning
global warming a hoax 1,780,000 hits
global warming hoax 1,770,000 hits
global warming 95,100,000 hits
“global warming a hoax” (with asterisks) 40,400 hits
“global warming hoax” (with asterisks) 106,000 hits
Just searching the word hoax 14,100,000 hits
Are you getting the idea biff?
Frenchie77: An interesting set of questions. However I have a couple of comments.
First, what do you require as proof? I know that in the past some people have required proof in the mathematical sense and such does not exist for the sciences.
In response to your number 2, let me ask you, do you accept that anthropogenic sources are responsible for all the recent CO2 increase? Also, do you accept that adding CO2 will cause warming?
So, lets start here and see where we go.
Regards,
John
@John Cross (7:02 AM):
Will that fellow pay up? Does he put money in an escrowed account with an independent trustee bound in writing to fork over the money to the “winner,” as specifically defined by the terms of the bet, once a bet is made? If so, then of course the same obligation would be on the head of the person on the other side of the bet.
(Didn’t Paul Ehlrich welch on his first bet with Julian Simon?)
Albatross
To say the hockey stick has been “updated” is a generous assessment. Even the lead scientist for the graph has admitted the mathematical models he used tend to produce hockey stick-like scenarios even if the data is changed.
John
They are from the IPCC’s own assessment done this year. Section 5. http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/sarsum1.htm
Daniel M. Ryan: I do not know the details but he has engaged in 1 bet with a skeptic so I would guess that the structure was in place. I also know of one bet that fell through because the skeptic wanted Brian to cover all the costs of setting up the accound and for the trustee.
In terms of the Ehrlich wager, he paid up in full based on the terms of the wager. The actual dollar cost was about $575.
Regards,
John
Except of course for the tide level measurements. Oh, and of course the satellite measurements. But apart from these, none. Oh, unless you count the measured temperature rise in the ocean and then calculate the thermal expansion. http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/178/8057/landfair.asp?wid=178&nid=8057
“Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is A Total Fraud”
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
So says Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner!
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years.
From 1850 to 1930-40 the sea level was rising, and that rise had a rate of 1.1 millimeter per year.
That ended in 1940, and there had been no rise until 1970
Since then there is no trend! Isn’t that interesting and look at how much CO2 has spewed into the atmosphere. How about that IPCC report?
I have been the expert reviewer for the IPCC, both in 2000 and last year. The first time I read it, I was exceptionally surprised. First of all, it had 22 authors, but none of them— none—were sea-level specialists.
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner says there are all sorts of problems with the methodology in the IPCC report and repeats “rising levels from 1850 to 1940” and since 1970 absolutely no trend. Sea levels are stable! http://www.iceagenow.com/Rising_Sea_Level_Claim_a_Total_Fraud.htm
Excerpt;
So, for example, those people in the IPCC choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It’s the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn’t use.
… Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that. …So tide gauges, you have to treat very, very carefully. Now, back to satellite altimetry. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.
Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in [the IPCC’s] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn’t look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn’t recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow —I said you have introduced factors from outside; it’s not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don’t say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!
John Cross: …
First, what do you require as proof? I know that in the past some people have required proof in the mathematical sense and such does not exist for the sciences.
In response to your number 2, let me ask you, do you accept that anthropogenic sources are responsible for all the recent CO2 increase? Also, do you accept that adding CO2 will cause warming? …
Proof, for 2), start by generating a complete list of all cause/effects that impact on the climate (you can stop once you are >95% certain that you got them all).
Once you have that, start grouping them into :
1) solely man-made factors,
2) Combined Man and natural factors, and
3) solely natual factors
Then start isolating them and conducting appropriate observations to determine existing cause/effect relationships (as it’s not really feasible to do trial/error experiments on the earth and computer models are not appropriate for this task, thus we are left with observations of past events, itself an error prone exercise).
Then start combining them to determine existing combined cause/effect relationships.
then…, well, we aren’t at 95% certainty yet.
That doesn’t mean that you can’t continue but it does mean that you must admit that the error bars are getting rather large…
Not that the science isn’t interesting or worthwhile, but – as I said how can you justify jumping to solutions at this stage??
I don’t accept anything as truth in science. The strength of the scientific approach lies in proper review and questioning of theories.
The question is: are we following that approach?
@John Cross (11:01 AM):
Thanks for the info. Here’s some for you: arranging such a bet through an escrow account with an independent trustee in charge of it makes it an enforcible contact – against the trustee, who has to disburse the funds according to the signed contract (which can be written so that it is not a bet in form.)
That’s how you talk with strangers in the moneyed world. Nuthin’ compared to the hoops that a listed corporation has to go through to secure investors’ funds through a private placement.
One more thing, John: if “one bet… fell through because the skeptic wanted Brian to cover all the costs of setting up the [account] and for the trustee”, then Brian was the one who turned down that bet. Whether it be for sound reasons or not, that’s the way that one went.
Increased snowfall and global warming causing present conditions in Antarctica ?
The UNEP is not sounding that dogmatic about this situation.
“There are far fewer observations of sea-ice thickness for the Antarctic than for the Arctic because of the lack of submarine measurements. It is therefore not possible to detect any trends in Antarctic sea-ice thickness over recent decades. The reasons for the very different trends in Arctic and Antarctic sea-ice extent over recent decades are not known at present and resolving this important question is a high research priority. Researchers are examining changes in the atmospheric circulation of the two polar regions as well as changes in ocean circulation.” June 2007.
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/regional-changes-in-arctic-and-antarctic-sea-ice
Precisely.
This is how it works: when ice melts, it’s incontrovertible evidence of “global warming”. When ice thickens, “further research is required”.
Oh, I get it: global warming isn’t just about it being too hot, it’s also about it being too cold. Wonderfully postmodern; must be some sort of Hegelian dialectic fumbling around in there someplace.
Anyway, now that Al Gore has another shiny prize for the display case in his overwatted Tennessee ecopod, his Hollywood friends must really be putting pressure on him to do the obvious and make a sequel: how about “Another Inconvenient Truth: It’s F—ing Freezing Down Here?”
Ever notice how lefties are so adept at selectively choosing the “facts” they want to believe to fit their view of the world.
Lefty dogma:
Socialism is good, ignoring Cuba, USSR, China, North Korea etc.
Gun Control works, ignoring England, Washington DC, Hitler, Castro, Lenin, Mugabe, etc.
Global warming is caused by CO2, ignoring historical data regarding natural cycles, past CO2 data, and so on.
They really are amazing and I’m surprised some enterprising psychologist hasn’t done a doctoral paper on their selective ocular dysfunction. (turning a blind eye to that which they choose to ignore)
FACT: It is human nature to resist change.
FACT: It is the planet’s nature to go right along with it.
So much for the yadda yadda on climate change.
On another somewhat related topic …
I have observed one area where humans usually are willing to accept change and eventually get on board and push it along. That is the change brought about when the capitalist system is introduced to a society plagued with the yoke of socialism or despotism (they go hand in hand actually).
Aside from the climate change circus/industry.
I just head a great interview on the Roy Green Show (corus radio network) about the fact that world poverty and illiteracy has been diminishing at an alarming rate (if you are a socialist) and a wonderfully inspiring rate if you are a free capitalist.
Check out Stephen Moore’s book on the subject …
HERE
At this time it is a far important message than the inconsequential truth of climate change.
Another Inconvenient Truth … to go hand-in-hand with the record Southern Hemisphere sea ice growth.
Ulus for Zulus, anyone?
(South African)Cold snap brings 54 new records
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2117319,00.html
The increased snowfall might apply to the height of the antarcti Ice Sheet….but it doesnt apply to the polar sea ice. Thats all about temperature, of the air and the sea and the direction of winds.
So small problem when the sea ice cover gets bigger…..in contrast to the theory of GW.
We have had record minima atr the north after a pretty average or above average maxima.
The main point is things arent as clear and certain as some would have us believe.
“Posted by: Kate at October 14, 2007 4:01 PM”
This is how it works: when ice melts, it’s incontrovertible evidence of “global warming”. When ice thickens, “further research is required”.
Kate you shouldn’t be putting your ignorance out there on display like that. Here is how it really works: A changing climate melts or expands multi year ice. Seasonal ice will give you a measure of local weather, and is not an indicator of climate..
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/antarctic_snowmelt.html
20 years of data, that’s almost as good as…well…local trends of the climate.
One question, alby.
Name me a time in the earth’s history climate has NOT changed.
Local effect ? So why does the media wail and fear-monger on every T-storm, record high, a melting ice cube ??
Because fear, man-bad sells papers. Bad news bears.
But when the weather/climate doesn’t play fair … Oh well, the easily duped will swallow the local-effect claim.
Who made that famous quip ? There is one born every minute …..
Mammoth bones in the Arctic?? Impossible! The earth has never been warmer than it is today, don’t you know.
albloss
go to this site
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html
and read and larn
The sun will start cooling off in 15 years, then this global warming stuff will go away. My concern is the pollution of water, not the air.
Albatros,
Can you not make point without first insulting your host?
You are a boor and a twit.
Alby:
The southern cap has been getting thicker for several years now. There is not much ‘global’ in this supposedly global warming.
RicardoVerde at October 14, 2007 10:12 PM
Reference?
set you free at October 14, 2007 8:12 PM
“One question, alby.
Name me a time in the earth’s history climate has NOT changed.”
Never.
Now you name me one time in history when it’s changed this quickly that hasn’t been linked to a sudden release of greenhouse gases driving the warmth.
GYM at October 14, 2007 9:04 PM
You want me to “read and larn” what? That Dr. Gray is in denial? That much of his life’s work has been for naught?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/
Though Gore is deserving of his Nobel for spreading the warning of climate change, he is hardly a source of god climate information. To listen to Gore on this subject is scratching a very thin slice of climate science.
More CO2 is a good thing.
Greenhouse Gas Might Green Up The Desert; Weizmann Institute Study Suggests That Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Might Cause Forests To Spread Into Dry Environments
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030509084556.htm
Alby, you shouldn’t put your reading comprehension limitations out there on display like that.
Albatros,
Try not to move your lips when reading the following …
http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/global-warming-climate-change.htm
Posted by: alan at October 14, 2007 10:31 PM
Ah yes, greening the desert. But then again it probably won’t. With all this extra CO2, where does the additional nitrogen and phosphorous come from? What about the forests and grasslands today that will be the deserts of tomorrow?
Care to stick your neck out a bit further and back that up Kate? Of course you never do, right?
Hey b_C, I’ve got a site too.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/sep/hazards.html
Albatross, when you’re more certain than the scientists on whom you base your certainty, well, then you’ve crossed into faith.
In recent years, the IPCC has made the following revisions:
1) revoked a “peer-reviewed” graph that purported to show a hockey stick-like rise in temperatures. That was a after a businessman in his spare time found the data was fraudulent.
2) reduced its estimate of the human impact on global warming by 25%
3) reduced its estimate for rising temperatures by a third
4) reduced its estimate for rising oceans by 25%
This comes on top of a failure of the climate modelers’ computer programs to accurately predict temperatures in all the years when they could be actually measured, and the puzzling absence of a rise in global air temperatures.
Do you see how fluid and ambiguous this stuff is? Personally, I was much more predisposed to global warming before the zealots jumped on the bandwagon. I recognize demagoguery when I see it and prefer to let the data provide a more convincing case.
GW -bring it on baby….I git ta grow grapefriuts and palm trees,to thems that usedta rip me off,too bad so sad.mite sell em water since the glaciers are meltin too ,sounds like win ,win
chip
The hockey stick is as valid today as it ever was. The deniers don’t like it, but it’s still in the AR4. So some of the figures have been updated but that’s what further studies do, they advance the understanding of the problem. Even though sea level won’t rise as fast as first thought, they are still rising. Temperatures are still rising but how warm it will get, nobody knows. Global warming is happening and we can’t stop the damage that has already been done. We can however limit further damage.
Kate at October 14, 2007 10:32 PM
Well Kate that has been long enough to consider that to be an official drive by smear.
Good night, coward.
Alba is just flailing and resorting to name calling because he/she’s watching the foundations of her religion come apart at the seams.
Flail away alba, I enjoy watching you come here and desperately try to convert the masses,
and fail miserably.
Google “global warming a hoax” and you’ll get 1.78 million hits. That number is growing by the day.
Alba’s got her work cut out for her.
@alan (Oct. 14th, 10:31 PM):
Your link touched upon something I myself was wondering about. If AGW is so ‘real’, then why haven’t there been any environmental groups buying up tracts of land just above the tree line for a huge tree-planting project? It gibes with other enviro groups buying up land in the rainforest to preserve it, and it would be a “good initiative” by enviro standards.
Just imagine how the greenie crowds would thrill to hear about ABC Group, a non-profit, buying up tracts of just-above-tree-line land in Canada for the purpose of planting carbon-sink trees “when” the tree line moves up to those tracts, so as to reduce the CO2 level in the atmosphere. Such a group could get approval from the provincial land ministries quickly, as they do have the political clout. Also, the greenie part of the media would love the idea. Al Gore might even visit.
I wonder why no such initiative like that has been started up. It’s akin to a prospector hanging around Bay Street bars saying “there’s gold in them thar properties and they ain’t hardly staked,” while not going up and staking claims in that same area.
Again, as many people here have already asked, would someone please provide precise proof of the fact that (in order):
1) The earth is warming /climate changing
2) the warming/change is predominatly caused by man
3) the full extent of this warming/change will be what, precisely (e.g. x degrees, water levels, desertification, etc)??
4) the overall effect of this warming/change is BAD (for man, for earth, etc)
5) man’s effects can be realistically stopped and/or then reversed by man.
I will state now that 1) should be considered an axiom, of course the climate is changing – always has and always will. So I’ll give you this one free…as we knew this before all the noise about AGW started.
For the final step 5, please note that I, or any rationale person, will not accept a solution that involves going back to the stone age (economically, technologically, socially, etc). Hence, the word realistically applies.
Now, you will notice one thing about the order above: each next step (from 1 to 5) is an order of magnitude more difficult to do.
We have barely been able to get a grip on how our climate works for step 1).
Step 2 is in heated debate with no clear winner (scientifically, although the politcal pundits can’t seem to keep quiet). We won’t have a scientifically known answer, with good certainty, for at least several more years.
So unless you are omniscient, would you please stop the BS that we can state that 4) is BAD and then jump straight to step 5. We have much, much more work to do and anyone jumpin the gun now is clearly doing so for Political/personal reasons.
Chip: Do you have a reference for your statements 3 & 4?
Daniel M Ryan: That is probably a good question, although it could be argued that the tree line would expand on its own anyway. Here is my question to you. If people are so certain that temperatures are falling since 1998 and that we are seeing the world enter a cooling phase – why do people not bet on it? Brian has been keeping track of who is willing to bet and who is not over here. http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2005/05/betting-on-global-warming.html
Regards,
John
Even though sea level won’t rise as fast as first thought, they are still rising.
There are no measurements showing the sea level rising. None. It’s all computer modeling.
Google Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner.
Seeing they’ve been taking the measurements for less than 30 years and they’re pretty much statistically the same, I can’t see how you can make much of them.
Plus there were no mammoths in Antarctuca. But why let science and research get in the way of your bias?
Seeing they’ve been taking the measurements for less than 30 years and they’re pretty much statistically the same, I can’t see how you can make much of them.
Plus there were no mammoths in Antarctuca. But why let science and research get in the way of your bias?
Uncle David stands in the prow of Gaia’s Ark while pkggkrg into the wind.
His goateed face is saline-soaked; his specs are caked with salty tears. His heart is broken. Again. The Golden Ham Actor award goes to Suzuki; Best in the Melodrama category.
…-
Canada not listening to leading environmentalist
{…]
Goateed, soft-spoken and avuncular, Suzuki …”
“”We’ve already been here before, and that’s the thing that breaks my heart,”
“”When the ice sheets drop, you’re going to get massive rises in sea levels.” …-
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=fde448ed-dc2a-4d70-801a-2c5f64739a23&k=63704
There are no measurements showing the sea level rising. None. It’s all computer modeling.
Except of course for the tide level measurements. Oh, and of course the satellite measurements. But apart from these, none. Oh, unless you count the measured temperature rise in the ocean and then calculate the thermal expansion.
As always, links available upon request!
reagrds,
John
biff at October 15, 2007 1:02 AM
You should learn how Google does it’s searches. Try it with the asterisks and when you are done that search just global warming, you’ll get 87 million hits.
Googled as of 09:00 this morning
global warming a hoax 1,780,000 hits
global warming hoax 1,770,000 hits
global warming 95,100,000 hits
“global warming a hoax” (with asterisks) 40,400 hits
“global warming hoax” (with asterisks) 106,000 hits
Just searching the word hoax 14,100,000 hits
Are you getting the idea biff?
Frenchie77: An interesting set of questions. However I have a couple of comments.
First, what do you require as proof? I know that in the past some people have required proof in the mathematical sense and such does not exist for the sciences.
In response to your number 2, let me ask you, do you accept that anthropogenic sources are responsible for all the recent CO2 increase? Also, do you accept that adding CO2 will cause warming?
So, lets start here and see where we go.
Regards,
John
@John Cross (7:02 AM):
Will that fellow pay up? Does he put money in an escrowed account with an independent trustee bound in writing to fork over the money to the “winner,” as specifically defined by the terms of the bet, once a bet is made? If so, then of course the same obligation would be on the head of the person on the other side of the bet.
(Didn’t Paul Ehlrich welch on his first bet with Julian Simon?)
Albatross
To say the hockey stick has been “updated” is a generous assessment. Even the lead scientist for the graph has admitted the mathematical models he used tend to produce hockey stick-like scenarios even if the data is changed.
John
They are from the IPCC’s own assessment done this year. Section 5.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/sarsum1.htm
Sea level rising is a fraud.
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_20-29/2007-25/pdf/33-37_725.pdf
Daniel M. Ryan: I do not know the details but he has engaged in 1 bet with a skeptic so I would guess that the structure was in place. I also know of one bet that fell through because the skeptic wanted Brian to cover all the costs of setting up the accound and for the trustee.
In terms of the Ehrlich wager, he paid up in full based on the terms of the wager. The actual dollar cost was about $575.
Regards,
John
Except of course for the tide level measurements. Oh, and of course the satellite measurements. But apart from these, none. Oh, unless you count the measured temperature rise in the ocean and then calculate the thermal expansion.
http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/178/8057/landfair.asp?wid=178&nid=8057
“Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is A Total Fraud”
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
So says Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner!
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years.
From 1850 to 1930-40 the sea level was rising, and that rise had a rate of 1.1 millimeter per year.
That ended in 1940, and there had been no rise until 1970
Since then there is no trend! Isn’t that interesting and look at how much CO2 has spewed into the atmosphere. How about that IPCC report?
I have been the expert reviewer for the IPCC, both in 2000 and last year. The first time I read it, I was exceptionally surprised. First of all, it had 22 authors, but none of them— none—were sea-level specialists.
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner says there are all sorts of problems with the methodology in the IPCC report and repeats “rising levels from 1850 to 1940” and since 1970 absolutely no trend. Sea levels are stable!
http://www.iceagenow.com/Rising_Sea_Level_Claim_a_Total_Fraud.htm
Excerpt;
So, for example, those people in the IPCC choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It’s the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn’t use.
… Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that. …So tide gauges, you have to treat very, very carefully. Now, back to satellite altimetry. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.
Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in [the IPCC’s] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn’t look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn’t recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow —I said you have introduced factors from outside; it’s not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don’t say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!
Albatros,
A better idea ….
Compare the real world:
http://www.confluence.org/
with the constructs on which you’ve premised your religion:
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php
(Click Random Image)
or
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/
Then … do remind me why I should be alarmed about “global” anything.
John Cross: …
First, what do you require as proof? I know that in the past some people have required proof in the mathematical sense and such does not exist for the sciences.
In response to your number 2, let me ask you, do you accept that anthropogenic sources are responsible for all the recent CO2 increase? Also, do you accept that adding CO2 will cause warming? …
Proof, for 2), start by generating a complete list of all cause/effects that impact on the climate (you can stop once you are >95% certain that you got them all).
Once you have that, start grouping them into :
1) solely man-made factors,
2) Combined Man and natural factors, and
3) solely natual factors
Then start isolating them and conducting appropriate observations to determine existing cause/effect relationships (as it’s not really feasible to do trial/error experiments on the earth and computer models are not appropriate for this task, thus we are left with observations of past events, itself an error prone exercise).
Then start combining them to determine existing combined cause/effect relationships.
then…, well, we aren’t at 95% certainty yet.
That doesn’t mean that you can’t continue but it does mean that you must admit that the error bars are getting rather large…
Not that the science isn’t interesting or worthwhile, but – as I said how can you justify jumping to solutions at this stage??
I don’t accept anything as truth in science. The strength of the scientific approach lies in proper review and questioning of theories.
The question is: are we following that approach?
@John Cross (11:01 AM):
Thanks for the info. Here’s some for you: arranging such a bet through an escrow account with an independent trustee in charge of it makes it an enforcible contact – against the trustee, who has to disburse the funds according to the signed contract (which can be written so that it is not a bet in form.)
That’s how you talk with strangers in the moneyed world. Nuthin’ compared to the hoops that a listed corporation has to go through to secure investors’ funds through a private placement.
One more thing, John: if “one bet… fell through because the skeptic wanted Brian to cover all the costs of setting up the [account] and for the trustee”, then Brian was the one who turned down that bet. Whether it be for sound reasons or not, that’s the way that one went.