Global Warming Alarmists in Retreat. Glaciers, Not So Much.

posted at 4:32 pm on January 29, 2011 by Jimmie Bise, Jr

The Church of Global Warming has faced an uphill battle lately. The average person is not likely to accept the message that the planet is warming and that only an unprecedented shift of power and money to progressive policy makers will brings things back to normal once they’ve lived through a couple horrible winters and witnessed the massive fraud perpetrated by the climate science community. So it has come to pass that the number of Britons who believe that global warming is both real and dangerous has shrunk rapidly in the past four years.

The number of climate change sceptics has almost doubled in four years, official research showed yesterday.

A quarter of Britons are unconvinced that the world is warming following successive freezing winters and a series of scandals over the credibility of climate science.

The figures suggest that a growing proportion of the public do not share the belief of all three major political parties and Whitehall – that climate change is a major and urgent challenge requiring radical and expensive policies.

According to the article, 86 percent of those surveyed were at least “fairly convinced” that global warming was a big deal in 2006. That number is now 75 percent and the number of those unconvinced has risen from 12 percent to 23 percent. What’s worse for the climate science alarmists is the part of the survey that asked if people were willing to sacrifice to end the “crisis”. Less than half of those surveyed are willing to switch from driving to using public transportation to help the cause. That number drops even lower when it comes to giving up air travel.

The reasons people see global warming alarmists are less credible is not limited to the “Climategate” fraud or cold winters. Better scientific studies are turning the tide from faith-based politics and toward — dare I say it — a more reality-based position (via memeorandum).

Researchers have discovered that contrary to popular belief half of the ice flows in the Karakoram range of the mountains are actually growing rather than shrinking.

The discovery adds a new twist to the row over whether global warming is causing the world’s highest mountain range to lose its ice cover.

It further challenges claims made in a 2007 report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the glaciers would be gone by 2035.

Although the head of the panel Dr Rajendra Pachauri later admitted the claim was an error gleaned from unchecked research, he maintained that global warming was melting the glaciers at “a rapid rate”, threatening floods throughout north India.

What’s more, the new study, which included almost 290 glaciers, showed that global warming isn’t the chief reason a glacier melts, but terrain and how much debris covers the glacier’s surface. That makes sense, if you take a few moments and noodle it through.

This study is just the latest scientific nail in the global warming alarmism coffin. The general population is running away from the alarmists and toward the far more reasonable position that the global climate is an enormous beast whose course we can not easily nor carelessly change but whose workings we should study more earnestly. To quote Michael Rubin Ledeen in a different context, “Faster, please”.


Jimmie runs The Sundries Shack and has his own very entertaining podcast called “The Delivery”. He is also an amateur musician, an aspiring composer, an unrepentant geek and an avid fan of Twitter.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

This is not huffpo…..
Hot Air is not the place for pushing baseless,ignorant talking points.

Baxter Greene on January 29, 2011 at 11:35 PM

In my experience with liberals like these, often when they do actually site sources, it’s obvious they haven’t read them thoroughly.

JannyMae on January 29, 2011 at 11:47 PM

bayam on January 29, 2011 at 5:47 PM

When you have some like actual science come and see me. I -am- a scientist. (albeit a computer scientist) The crap you snake oil salesmen are peddling isn’t science and you have no evidence. The CRU NOAA and NASA all faked their evidence.

What you have is religion.

dogsoldier on January 29, 2011 at 11:54 PM

Furthermore the words “consensus” and science should never be used in any sentence. as other s have correctly stated that isn’t science, it’s politics.

And well all know what a pile that is.

dogsoldier on January 30, 2011 at 12:01 AM

blink on January 30, 2011 at 12:16 AM

..whoa….
“You should have chopped more trees instead of hugging them”

…now that’s funny!

Baxter Greene on January 30, 2011 at 12:30 AM

I don’t know what YOU mean by … the “hockey stick”.

oakland on January 29, 2011 at 10:25 PM

WTF? Never heard of the Hockey Stick Plot? Its ONLY the center of gravity of the ENTIRE DEBATE. Its what triggered the WHOLE controversy from day one. Good Gawd.

Geochelone on January 30, 2011 at 1:04 AM

Baxter Greene on January 29, 2011 at 9:50 PM

You managed to quote only one scientific source in your entire post.

Which is more than any you have provided in the whole thread.

How long,Mr. science teacher, are you going to demand links and verification while you provide NOTHING?????

…are you even smart enough to see your hypocrisy????

That was a fragment of a SI article that, without the rest of the context, has nothing of any value to ponder.


I am not going to do all your work for you.
It’s called google…..
………it is a search engine that is so easy to operate that even you should be able to do it.

Fragment are not…you obviously are unable to refute it.

Also, do you really consider those television reporters and politicians you quote to be authoritative in the matter of AWG (as opposed to those who have devoted years in training and practice in the relevant scientific disciplines)?
oakland on January 29, 2011 at 10:01 PM


These politicians cited the IPCC and global warming models.
They also have just as much credibility on this issue as you do…which is saying very little.

You managed to quote only one scientific source in your entire post.

Well oakland the junior weatherman apparently can’t read either..
…from my post.

(notice I even highlighted these sources in my quote and you still can’t find them)


“State of the Climate” from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

Scientific American reported:

mainly from the NOAA lab in Boulder.

as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change
(if you would like to know which “scientist” feel free to email the author Charles Onians)

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,

Looking at the United States of America, the IPCC clearly warned that unchecked global warming will lead to reduced snow pack in the western mountains
(if you have a problem with this statement…feel free to verify with (D) Barbara Boxer )

….I have provided multiple scientific sources that made these claims.

Can you refute them with any facts or data or are you going to just go with the “not good enough for me” dodge like you have done the entire thread?????

Baxter Greene on January 30, 2011 at 1:05 AM

Did global warming theories ever state that winter would be cancelled? Please quote source.

From what I have read, global warming would result in more precipitation (due to higher temperatures), allowing for winter precipitation events of greater severity (when they happen). This is not something new, but has been predicted widely for decades.

oakland on January 29, 2011 at 9:16 PM

Your requested quote:

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

OAKLAND: Please produce a link saying that global warming would lead to more snow PRIOR TO the onset of these brutal winters lately… 2005 or before. Otherwise I shall mock you mercilessly :).

As Yogi Berra said, “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”

theCork on January 30, 2011 at 2:06 AM

These politicians cited the IPCC and global warming models.
They also have just as much credibility on this issue as you do…which is saying very little.

Are those the same models that predicted we were just around a corner till the next ice age?

Hint: It is.

So how did it go from the “next ice age” to “global warming” virtually over night?

Same data for both the “next ice age” and “global warming”, what changed?

What changed was “where” the “data” was “plugged into” the “models”.

Think Algebra or a formula for a spreadsheet.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body tasked with reviewing and assessing the most recent scientific.

Ahhhhh have ya ever considered the IPCC might just have a vested interests in seeing to it the “next ice age, global warming, AGW, Climate Change” continues or they are out of a job?

You would think these global warming nuts would use their own head and question the so-called “Climate Scientist” claims.

Claim “The Glacier’s in Greenland are melting at an phenomenal rate! And were all gonna die!!!!!”

Fact “ Glacier Girl, a P-38 fighter found (1992) under 270 feet of ice on the Glacier it landed on in Greenland, 15 July 1942”

Question? How did 270 of ice accumulate on a Glacier, with 50 years of global warming and the Greenland Glacier’s melting!??????

DSchoen on January 30, 2011 at 4:21 AM

Baxter Greene on January 29, 2011 at 11:06 PM

Baxter, it is obvious that you have no love for Mr. Hansen. However, I don’t think you can hold him responsible for misinformation that the Russians fed him.

Now, since you seem to think that NASA has become “skeptical” of AGW, you might want to go to the following link: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

oakland on January 30, 2011 at 7:03 AM

In this thread…Oakland has not provided one ounce of proof that global warming exits or is responsible for all the global events and weather that he and the eco-fundamentalist claim.

..not from what I have read…not according to how I think….not according to what I have seen…
Real persuasive argument and factual rebuttal you have there.

I am still laughing at the “What hockey stick do you speak of??????…..

“Please tell me more about this hockey stick”??????

Baxter Greene on January 29, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Baxter: why can’t you tell me what YOU mean by “hockey stick” and “CAGW”? Can you answer this question for me? Or, at least point to the scientific literature that references these terms. Then, I can answer yours.

I don’t have evidence, as I am not a scientist. Look up for yourself if you are truly interested in scientific evidence.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

and some analysis (based on evidence) from ncar:
View a recently modeled animation of Earth’s warming. Movie file is large, but worth the wait. For more than 100 years, Earth’s surface temperature has been monitored by a global network of land-based weather stations. These reports are supplemented by sea-surface and air temperature readings taken at points across the oceans that cover 70% of the globe. The ups and downs of air temperature are modulated by the sea, so the uppermost ocean serves as a good index of the average air temperature just above it.
Together, these data show that Earth’s surface air temperature has risen more than 1.1°F (0.7°C) since the late 1800s. This warming of the average temperature around the globe has been especially sharp since the 1970s. Global models at NCAR have simulated 20th century climate and found three main factors at work:

1.Solar activity contributed to a warming trend in global average temperature from the 1910s through 1930s.
2.As industrial activity increased following World War II, sun-blocking sulfates and other aerosol emissions helped lead to a slight global cooling from the 1940s to 1970s.
3.Since 1980, the rise in greenhouse gas emissions from human activity has overwhelmed the aerosol effect to produce overall global warming.
Some urban areas have also warmed due to the heat-island effect, where buildings and pavement retain more heat than undeveloped areas and cause more runoff and thus drier conditions as well. NCAR scientists and their colleagues have worked carefully to remove urban heat-island effects and other potential biases from the global record. Even after these adjustments, the rise in global temperature remains clear.

oakland on January 30, 2011 at 7:13 AM

theCork on January 30, 2011 at 2:06 AM

Thanks for the heads-up, Cork. Please be merciful. And check this out from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

In areas where a drought or excessive wetness usually accompanies an El Niño or La Niña, these dry or wet spells have been more intense in recent years. Further, there is some evidence for increasing drought worldwide, however in the U.S. there is no evidence for increasing drought.In some areas where overall precipitation has increased (ie. the mid-high northern latitudes), there is evidence of increases in the heavy and extreme precipitation events.

Precipitation is also expected to increase over the 21st century, particularly at northern mid-high latitudes, though the trends may be more variable in the tropics,

oakland on January 30, 2011 at 7:31 AM

When you have some like actual science come and see me. I -am- a scientist. (albeit a computer scientist) The crap you snake oil salesmen are peddling isn’t science and you have no evidence. The CRU NOAA and NASA all faked their evidence.

What you have is religion.

dogsoldier on January 29, 2011 at 11:54 PM

AS a computer scientist, you might be interested in this:
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/

oakland on January 30, 2011 at 7:35 AM

Now, for a summary of evidence of warming and resultant effects, via NOAA go here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

For an overview on recording stations NOAA keeps:
http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html

NOAA has a section completely devoted to climate data analysis:
http://www.climate.gov/#climateWatch

Check this out for a global review of 2010:

2010 Global Climate Highlights:

Global surface temperature anomalies for 2010.
High Resolution (Credit: NOAA)
•Combined global land and ocean annual surface temperatures for 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record at 1.12 F (0.62 C) above the 20th century average. The range of confidence (to the 95 percent level) associated with the combined surface temperature is +/- 0.13 F (+/- 0.07 C).*

•The global land surface temperatures for 2010 were tied for the second warmest on record at 1.73 F (0.96 C) above the 20th century average. The range of confidence associated with the land surface temperature is +/- 0.20 F (+/- 0.11 C).

•Global ocean surface temperatures for 2010 tied with 2005 as the third warmest on record, at 0.88 F (0.49 C) above the 20th century average. The range of confidence associated with the ocean surface temperature is +/- 0.11 F (+/- 0.06 C).

•In 2010 there was a dramatic shift in the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which influences global temperature and precipitation patterns — when a moderate-to-strong El Niño transitioned to La Niña conditions by July. At the end of November, La Niña was moderate-to-strong.

•According to the Global Historical Climatology Network, 2010 was the wettest year on record, in terms of global average precipitation. As with any year, precipitation patterns were highly variable from region to region.

•The 2010 Pacific hurricane season had seven named storms and three hurricanes, the fewest on record since the mid-1960s when scientists started using satellite observations. By contrast, the Atlantic season was extremely active, with 19 named storms and 12 hurricanes. The year tied for third- and second-most storms and hurricanes on record, respectively.

•The Arctic sea ice extent had a record long growing season, with the annual maximum occurring at the latest date, March 31, since records began in 1979. Despite the shorter-than-normal melting season, the Arctic still reached its third smallest annual sea ice minimum on record behind 2007 and 2008. The Antarctic sea ice extent reached its eighth smallest annual maximum extent in March, while in September, the Antarctic sea ice rapidly expanded to its third largest extent on record.

oakland on January 30, 2011 at 7:53 AM

2010 is the hottest year in recorded global history

LMAO! These threads sure do bring them out.

MNHawk on January 30, 2011 at 8:01 AM

LMAO! These threads sure do bring them out.

MNHawk on January 30, 2011 at 8:01 AM

Which year (in recorded global history) was the hottest, Hawk?

oakland on January 30, 2011 at 8:12 AM

In my part of the world it isn’t getting any warmer. At the height of the “polar bears are drowning” scare a few years back, we were experiencing record cold in Bristol Bay, AK and sea ice was as far south as St Paul Island in the Bering Sea in late March. I have done weather reports for NOAA and the NWS. The 2 coldest summers on record in Anchorage the past 5 years. Snow in Seattle before Thanksgiving, record cold in Cancun when the climate freaks show up, snow in Australia at summer solstice. Massive cold throughout Europe. Ohhh, must be global warming!

tbear44 on January 30, 2011 at 8:24 AM

MSM so desperate for a hurricane they were naming tropical storms.

tbear44 on January 30, 2011 at 8:27 AM

Which year (in recorded global history) was the hottest, Hawk?

oakland on January 30, 2011 at 8:12 AM

Compared to what base point?

OldEnglish on January 30, 2011 at 8:29 AM

oakland on January 30, 2011 at 7:13 AM

That was pretty pathetic for NASA. They took a bunch of data related to the Earth coming out of the little ice age and attributed it to CO2 concentrations without showing any connection at all.

Count to 10 on January 30, 2011 at 8:40 AM

MSM so desperate for a hurricane they were naming tropical storms.

tbear44 on January 30, 2011 at 8:27 AM

Don’t they name everything down to tropical depressions as a general rule?

Count to 10 on January 30, 2011 at 8:41 AM

Which year (in recorded global history) was the hottest, Hawk?

oakland on January 30, 2011 at 8:12 AM

Well, apparently it’s not 2010:

•Combined global land and ocean annual surface temperatures for 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record at 1.12 F (0.62 C) above the 20th century average. The range of confidence (to the 95 percent level) associated with the combined surface temperature is +/- 0.13 F (+/- 0.07 C).*

Plus, taking account of the range of confidence, it seems for you it’s a matter of faith more than anything else.

I like this too:

By contrast, the Atlantic season was extremely active, with 19 named storms and 12 hurricanes. The year tied for third- and second-most storms and hurricanes on record, respectively.

I guess they forgot to mention they now name tropical depressions whereas just a few years ago they didn’t. This would uh, automatically increase the number of named storms.

Anyway, no one believes NASA, NOAA or the NCDC any longer. All have been corrupted and the evidence is overwhelming.

Global warming nut a five a decade ago: You’ll never see snow again! Never!

Global warming nut today: All this record snow is caused by uhh … more moisture! Yeah, that’s it! More moisture!
What a bunch of loons.

Oh, and the manipulation of the surface temperature stations guarantees warmer temperatures. Quite a move there … remove virtually all the stations in rural and higher latitudes and keep the urban ones! Yeah, nothing wrong with that. Really accurate … lol.

darwin on January 30, 2011 at 8:45 AM

NCAR scientists and their colleagues have worked carefully to remove urban heat-island effects and other potential biases from the global record. Even after these adjustments, the rise in global temperature remains clear.

oakland on January 30, 2011 at 7:13 AM

OMG. That’s the biggest lie ever. They’ve done just the opposite.

darwin on January 30, 2011 at 8:47 AM

Extreme precipitation events have long been projected by theorists to accompany global warming. THere have always been extreme events; that hasn’t changed. However, the frequency of these events seems to be changing, according to studies, such as this

http://www.amwa.net/galleries/climate-change/2010_NortheastExtremePrecip.pdf

Is this evidence of global climate change? You can decide.

Now, the flip side of the coin is the presence of drought conditions. When rain falls intensely in one location, other locations are deprived (there’s only so much rainfall/snowfall). Although drought conditions don’t seem to be intensifying in the US, they are elsewhere, such as in northern Africa.

Now, neither extreme precipitation nor drought are good for agriculture. If these conditions/events are becoming more frequent worldwide (and evidence suggests that this is so), then we are looking at diminished food production (which is already occurring in various locations of the planet).

The main issue in the AGW debate, the way I see it, is not if earth will survive (it always has, and always will, until the sun expires). It is how well WE survive. Climate changes have always occurred without the help of man. And, these changes, while they were occurring, have not proven to be neutral or positive while they were occurring.

Surely, climate change occurs without our help. Do we really want to help the change along and augment nature’s own effects, and produce a more variable climate system? The main issue is agriculture (putting food on the table). So, can we rely on farmers to adapt to changing climate patterns and provide us the food in the quantities that were are accustomed to?

oakland on January 30, 2011 at 8:48 AM

Well, apparently it’s not 2010:

Darwin, what year was the hottest then?

oakland on January 30, 2011 at 8:50 AM

Which year (in recorded global history) was the hottest, Hawk?

oakland on January 30, 2011 at 8:12 AM

To support your assertion that 2010 was the hottest year in recorded global history please give us a comparison between the temperature profile for 2010 AD and 150 AD. Don’t forget to provide supporting documentation and the methods used to collect data.

Oldnuke on January 30, 2011 at 8:51 AM

Darwin, what year was the hottest then?

oakland on January 30, 2011 at 8:50 AM

I don’t know. What year would you like to be the hottest? I’ll call NASA and see if they can do some more voodoo.

How about 2011? 2012? Plus, how hot would you like it to be? Pick one:

- eh, kinda hot.

- Whoa! It’s phucking hot!

or

- OMG my flesh is melting!!! Hurry and tax us! Take our money and control us, just make it stop!!!

darwin on January 30, 2011 at 8:57 AM

The main issue in the AGW debate, the way I see it, is not if earth will survive (it always has, and always will, until the sun expires). It is how well WE survive.

oakland on January 30, 2011 at 8:48 AM

No, the main issue is money and control. It’s always been about money. Money for corrupt scientists, money for politicians, money for the UN.

Oil = freedom of movement. It’s so much easier to control people when they’re confined in certain areas. How to kill oil? Tell everyone it’s killing the planet.

We do know one thing for ceratin, AGW has nothing to do with warming or science.

darwin on January 30, 2011 at 9:02 AM

Believers in agw are either in it for the money or they have consumed so much kool aide, their brains are mush. They will hold onto these beliefs just like the ufo believers hold onto theirs.

Kissmygrits on January 30, 2011 at 9:25 AM

A foot of global warming tends to weaken the faith…

Dandapani on January 30, 2011 at 9:29 AM

Baxter, it is obvious that you have no love for Mr. Hansen. However, I don’t think you can hold him responsible for misinformation that the Russians fed him.

Not for being fooled originally. But after other evidence became clear, a scientist would factor the new evidence into the equations.

Now, since you seem to think that NASA has become “skeptical” of AGW, you might want to go to the following link: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

oakland on January 30, 2011 at 7:03 AM

See above. Why do these ‘climate scientists’ ignore contrary evidence?

Squiggy on January 30, 2011 at 9:40 AM

Redirecting trillions of oil dollars to domestic energy sources would be a huge boon for this country’s economy and create tens of thousands of American jobs.

bayam on January 29, 2011 at 6:20 PM

Forcibly taking money from people and “redirecting” to “green” energy development is theft and crony capitalism.

Secondly, we have plenty of “domestic energy” here. All we have to do is go after it.

Third, killing oil jobs to produce “green” jobs gives you a net gain of zero jobs.

darwin on January 30, 2011 at 9:51 AM

oakland on January 30, 2011 at 7:13 AM

NASA admitted in response to a FOIL request that all of its “data” came from CRU. All of that data was already manipulated by CRU when NASA obtained it and CRU has since “lost” its raw data.

So, NASA has no science and anything they claim is not scientific. All they do is re-spout CRU’s claims, which are not scientific b/c CRU has no “data” that can be checked by anyone.

Why anyone would continue to call this science is a joke. I really don’t understand what you think you are arguing. Every single claim by the warmists has been disproven. No more intense hurricanes. Glaciers are not melting. they have no scientific evidence to support warming trends. There is no science, only belief.

Monkeytoe on January 30, 2011 at 9:54 AM

It is interesting though that the goals of the warmists are the exact same as the communists – redistribution of wealth. funny that.

Monkeytoe on January 30, 2011 at 9:55 AM

Baxter, it is obvious that you have no love for Mr. Hansen. However, I don’t think you can hold him responsible for misinformation that the Russians fed him.

It is not about whether I have any “love” for Hansen..

You asked a question…and unlike you…I provided an answer and backed it up:

James Hansen at NASA was minded concerning a mistake in his analysis concerning temperature data. He thanked the contributor and made the correction. This is the way science is done.

Now, what “shennanigans” are you referring to?

oakland on January 29, 2011 at 10:22 PM

I provided proof that Hansen is a liar and manipulates data to fit his agenda….the Russian’s did not make him take readings from Sept. and insert them into Oct. to falsify a reading.
Nor did anyone make him state that “he was being shut down by the Bush administration” when he had already conducted over 1,400 interviews and issued statements.

Now, since you seem to think that NASA has become “skeptical” of AGW, you might want to go to the following link: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

oakland on January 30, 2011 at 7:03 AM

Please show me where I said “NASA” had become skeptical.
You are having a hard enough time backing up your own statements and answering questions laid out to you,the last thing you need to do is start making up stuff.

When NASA and other agencies can start providing un-manipulated data,quit trying to shut out dissent,provide their work,and quit getting caught lying….you know….credible science….then they will be taken more seriously.

Baxter Greene on January 30, 2011 at 10:14 AM

It is sad that more people in Britain believe in global warming than in Christianity and/or God. They have been thoroughly duped by the marxist BBC and other mouth organs of socialist propaganda. The only hope I have for Britain is that these opinion polls are as corrupt as the democrap polls in the US. If not, Britain will sink beneath the waves before long. Fail Britannia, instead of Hail Britannia.

eaglewingz08 on January 30, 2011 at 10:17 AM

Piled deep with snow, New York resembles Fairbanks, Alaska.But you know how Liberals think (or maybe none of us do). Now they’re blaming the current global cooling on the global warming!And why not? When an Arizona liberal goes on a killing rampage, conservatives are blamed. When a high school graduate can’t read an application form, “racist” Republicans are blamed (but NEVER the liberal union-protected teacher). When an Obama-created spending orgasm has the economy mired in debt, Bush is blamed.

MaiDee on January 30, 2011 at 10:39 AM

When NASA and other agencies can start providing un-manipulated data,quit trying to shut out dissent,provide their work,and quit getting caught lying….you know….credible science….then they will be taken more seriously.

Baxter Greene on January 30, 2011 at 10:14 AM

I mean seriously, that’s all we’re asking for … honest science.

darwin on January 30, 2011 at 10:39 AM

oakland on January 30, 2011 at 7:53 AM

Weather stations and monitors around the world have been shown to have their data manipulated,cherry picked,and moved to urban areas that will give higher readings…
..please provide proof that these readings are credible.

Here is another quick overview for you:

Since you apparently can’t address the context of your “it’s the hottest year yet” chicken little cries…I will repost the reality of your statement with context:


Only 9,099 Of Last 10,500 Years Warmer Than 2010
December 30, 2010 9:00 A.M.

By Brian Bolduc
http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/256079/only-9099-last-10500-years-warmer-2010-brian-bolduc

So where do the 1934/1998/2010 warm years rank in the long-term list of warm years? Of the past 10,500 years, 9,100 were warmer than 1934/1998/2010. Thus, regardless of which year ( 1934, 1998, or 2010) turns out to be the warmest of the past century, that year will rank number 9,099 in the long-term list.

As usual…if the data that global warming alarmist even turns out to be credible….it still does not prove that their is man made global warming.We have been having hot and cold runs of climate for thousands of years.
If so many scientist had not manipulated these facts out of their “hockey stick” graphs and other models,”the sky is falling” rants by people like you would have fallen on deaf ears.

Here is a good review of 2010:

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9435/Oh-My-2010-tied-for-hottest-year-Relax-it-is-purely-a-political-statement–Even-NASAs-Hansen-admits-it-is-not-particularly-important–Prof-mocks-hottest-decade-claim-as-a-joke

Oh My! 2010 tied for ‘hottest’ year?! Relax, it is ‘purely a political statement’ — Even NASA’s Hansen admits it is ‘not particularly important’ — Prof. mocks ‘hottest decade’ claim as ‘a joke’

‘Claims based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree’
Friday, January 14, 2011By Marc Morano – Climate Depot

Climate Depot Editorial

There they go again. The global warming establishment and the media are crowing about 2010 being in a tie for the “hottest year” ever. Everyone from Senator John Kerry to Joe Romm are screaming that this is “proof” the planet is burning up in a Co2 induced hell — and it’s your fault!

It is time for Climate Depot to do a point-by-point rebuttal to the latest round of temperature data nonsense. Let’s begin:

Below are excerpts from the January 13, 2011 UK Telegraph’s coverage of the warmists’ claim of the “hottest year” ever.

UK Telegraph Headline Claim: “Flood warnings: hottest year confirms global warming say experts — Last year was the joint warmest on record, according to new figures from NASA, that experts say confirm the case for man-made climate change.”

Climate Depot Response: This is pure politics, not science. The “hottest year” claims confirm the case for political science overtaking climate science. The “hottest year” claim depends on minute fractions of a degree difference between years. Even NASA’s James Hansen, the leading proponent of man-made global warming in the U.S., conceded the “hottest year” rankings are essentially meaningless. Hansen explained that 2010 differed from 2005 by less than 2 hundredths of a degree F (that’s 0.018F). “It’s not particularly important whether 2010, 2005, or 1998 was the hottest year on record,” Hansen admitted on January 13. According to NASA, none of agencies tasked with keeping the global temperature data agree with each other. “Rankings of individual years often differ in the most closely watched temperature analyses — from GISS, NCDC, and the UK Met Office — a situation that can generate confusion.”

Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue of Florida State University ridiculed the “hottest year” rankings and Hansen’s admission that it “was not particularly important” which year was declared the “hottest.” “Well, then stop issuing press releases which tout the rankings, which are subject to change ex post facto,” Maue demanded in a January 14 commentary at WattsUpWithThat.com.

The “warmest year” claim falls apart even further when you look at even slightly longer time scales. Climatologist Patrick Michaels explained to USA Today on January 12: “If you draw a trend line from the data, it’s pretty flat from the 1990s. We don’t see much of a warming trend over the past 12 years.” Also note that the planet has warmed since about 1850, the end of the Little Ice Age.

The declaration that we are experiencing a tie for the “hottest” year is purely a political statement because these claims are based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few hundredths of a degree. NASA asserts that the trend over the last decade is the most important factor, but this claim does not hold up to scrutiny either. See: German Climate Professor Werner Kirstein Slams ‘Climate Religion’: Refutes claims of ‘hottest decade’ as ‘a joke’ — ‘Determining a global avg. is a tricky business and in the end is only a theoretical value’

MIT’s Richard Lindzen: Earth is never in equilibrium: ‘Global warming enthusiasts are arguing that the past decade has been the warmest on record. We are still speaking of tenths of a degree, and the records themselves have come into question’

MIT’s Richard Lindzen: ‘For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause’

MIT’s Richard Lindzen: ‘Lull in warming was unsurprising, given an earlier ‘obsessing about tenths of a degree in the 1980s and early 1990s’: ‘Global temperature just fluctuates. I think the best explanation is the ocean. The timescale for ocean circulations can be decades.’

Meteorologist Art Horn: ‘To say the 2010 was tied with the warmest year on record is essentially meaningless when viewed in a true historical context’: ‘The reason they do not give this record its true historical context is because their statement is really political’

Science Corrupted: It’s ‘the hottest year on record’, as long as you don’t take its temperature — Activist James Hansen’s claims based on ‘pure conjecture’ — Hansen’s Climate Con: ‘The parts of the world which GISS shows to be heating up the most are so short of weather stations that only 25 per cent of the figures are based on actual temperature readings’

2007: Team of Scientists Question Validity of a ‘Global Temperature’ – Excerpt: “Discussions on global warming often refer to ‘global temperature.’ Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility, says Physicist Dr. Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen. “It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth.” “A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. He explains that while it is possible to treat temperature statistics locally, it is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. “The globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average ‘global exchange rate.’”

Are Modern Temperature Changes ‘Unprecedented?’ The Data Clearly Reveals Modern Temp Changes To Be Normal — ‘Unfortunately for all alarmists, the real data reveals the bogosity of their claims’

Warmists at Grist Mag. Upset at failed PR Stunt of ‘Hottest’ Year: ‘The timing couldn’t be worse: with snow in every state but Florida (yes, even Hawaii)… And scientists wonder why they continue to see [low] poll numbers’

Analysis: NOAA & NCDC Pursue Goal of ‘Warmest Year Ever’ For 2010 – Release Newly ‘Fabricated’ Global Temperatures

Analysis: ’150 years of ‘records’ is not long. It was warmer 1000 years ago, 2000 years ago, 5000 years ago and 130,000 years ago’

Scientists continue to bail out on man-made global warming, especially since the Climategate scandal. See: SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore – Dec. 2010

#

UK Guardian Claim: “This is despite less solar activity and the onset of La Nina, an irregular cycle that brings cooler temperatures to the Pacific Ocean”

Climate Depot Rebuttal: Actually, much of 2010 was dominated by a strong warming El Nino. La Nina did not kick in until later in the year. It is also amusing to see that the temperatures in the U.S. were glossed over. See: Inconvenient Temps: According to NCDC’s own data, 2010 was not the warmest year in the United States, nor even a tie — It ranked 94th!! – ‘There’s no mention of the 2010 ranking for the USA temperature at all, nor any mention of the fact that 2010 was not nearly as warm as 1998, or 1934′

UK Guardian Reports: “Bob Ward, of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics said: ‘The evidence is overwhelming that human activities are driving climate change, and the public should not be fooled by those who seek to delay and prevent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by claiming that the Earth is cooling or that carbon dioxide does not cause warming.’”

Climate Depot Response: Here is the heart of the warmist “hottest” year claims. We must act now to prevent climate doom. Those darn meddling skeptics are keeping us from passing meaningless and purely symbolic climate bills! Poor Bob Ward, he is now lamenting that no seems to care about the claims of the “hottest year” during the midst of a brutally cold and snowy winter. Ward asked: “Yesterday’s announcement that 2010 tied for the warmest year ever recorded on Earth was ignored by nearly all UK media outlets. How can this be?”

The answer is obvious. No one is buying the manufactured tripe surrounding claims based on fractions of a degree. The public instinctively knows these claims are motivated by pure politics. Get used to it Mr.Ward. NASA’s James Hansen’s old bag of tricks no longer works. The public has figured out the tricks and won’t be fooled again.

UK Guardian Reports: Daniel J. Weiss, who directs climate strategy for the Center for American Progress, told the Washington Post, said the figures should force the world to take action. “Hopefully, this new data will finally convince congressional climate-science deniers that global warming is real and that action is urgent,” he told the Washington Post.

Climate Depot Response: Once again, politics is driving the “science.” We see how “scientific” data is telegraphed by leading government global warming institutions to promote specific policy objectives. Sorry Mr. Weiss, passing a meaningless climate bill that Obama’s own EPA admits would not impact global Co2 levels — let alone global temperatures — is not going to translate in taking “urgent” action. See: For Shame: NAS Pres. Ralph Cicerone Turns Science Org. into political advocacy group: $6 million NAS study is used to lobby for global warming bill

UK Guardian Reports: Dan Weiss added: “To reject this latest evidence is like ignoring strange spots on a chest X-ray and continuing to smoke.”

Climate Depot Response to Dan Weiss: Dan, you have your metaphors all mixed up. It should be: “To accept these latest claims by quack doctors — like James Hansen, Michael Oppenheimer and Kevin Trenberth — is like ignoring reams of evidence that they should have their licenses revoked for repeated malpractice.”

You would have to question the diagnosis of any “doctor” who is pushing his costly and purely placebo remedies on a patient who is not even sick. As warmists like Kevin Trenberth grow more and more desperate and see every weather event as more “proof” of man-made global warming, the more apt metaphor for them would be “witch doctor.” Note: Morano and Weiss debated on ABC News: See here. Also See: Watch Now: Climate Depot’s Morano on Fox News Mocking ‘Climate Astrology’: ‘This is now akin to the predictions of Nostradamus or the Mayan calendar’ — Morano: ‘There is no way anyone can falsify the global warming theory now because any weather event that happens ‘proves’ their case…Man-made global warming has ceased to be a science, it is now the level of your daily horoscope’ — Gore [in 2006 film] did not warn us of extreme blizzards and record cold winters coming’

Even more strange are claims that the record snow is caused by man-made global warming. See: Basic Chemistry For Climate Science Mental Midgets: Excerpt: “Temperatures in the US have been running far below normal. Cold air holds less water than warm air. So if you say ‘snow cover in 49 states is due to more moisture in the air from global warming’ – then you have absolutely no idea WTF you are talking about.The air is not warm, and Sea Surface Temperatures are also running well below normal. The widespread snow cover is due to cold, not the imaginary warmth inside your computer model.”

UK Guardian Claim: “In another marker of climate change, Arctic sea ice cover was the third smallest since record-keeping began in 1979.”

Climate Depot Response: The “record” is based on just 30 years. It is odd the media or the warmist propagandists make no mention of Antarctic sea ice which has been at or near record highs. It is odd that they do not note that global sea ice in December 2010 was well above normal. See: NSIDC Shows Global Sea Ice Extent Almost 1 Million Km^2 Above Normal

Since the low point of Arctic ice in 2007, it has rebounded. [Note: Even the low point of Arctic sea ice extent in 2007 was not caused by CO2 driven warming. Multiple peer-review papers found it was due to high pressure days, ocean currents and “unusual winds.” -- see links below]

Arctic ice rebounded significantly in 2009 from the low of 2007. (by an area more than one and half the size of Texas in 2009) In 2010, Arctic sea ice extent GREW by over 7,000 Manhattans in 3 years! Also see: The Area Of Thick Arctic Ice Has Doubled In The Last Two Years

The warmists are ignoring the record ice growth in the Antarctic and the fact that global sea ice recently hit a 30 year high. See: Antarctic Sea Ice 30,000 Manhattans Above Normal — Antarctic Ice Above Normal 83% Of The Time Since Mid-2007 & See: Perspective on Arctic Ice: Mockery: ‘You can see why some ‘scientists’ at NASA and NOAA want to re-engineer the world’s economy over a possibly missing ice cube.’

Warmist Claim: “Derek Arndt, who heads the climate monitoring branch at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., said the new data should be viewed in the context of the record retreat of snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere at the end of the melt season…”

Climate Depot Response: Arndt’s claim is bizarre, misleading and intellectually dishonest. See: Ministry Of Truth Announces ‘record retreat of snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere’ – But it was the ‘second largest winter snow cover on record’

#

Related Link:

Lord Christopher Monckton on the ‘Hottest Year’ – January 10 2010: Excerpt: The record only began ten decades ago. As for sea temperatures, they are less significant for analyzing “global warming” than estimated total ocean heat content. A recent paper by Professors David Douglass and Robert Knox of Rochester University, New York, has established that – contrary to various climate-extremist assertions – there has been no net accumulation of “missing energy” in the form of heat in the oceans worldwide in the six years since ocean heat content was first reliably measured by the 3000 automated ARGO bathythermographs in 2003. This finding implies that the amount of warming we can expect from even quite a large increase in CO2 concentration is far less than the IPCC and other climate-extremist groups maintain. [...] What is important is how fast the world is warming. In fact, the rate of warming from 1975-2001, at 0.16 C° per decade, was the fastest rate to be sustained for more than a decade in the 160-year record, but exactly the same rate occurred from 1860-1880 and again from 1910-1940, when we could not possibly have had anything to do with it. Since late 2001 there has been virtually no “global warming” at all. [...] After 300 years of global warming, during nearly all of which we could not on any view have influenced the climate to a measurable degree, it is scarcely surprising that recent decades will be warmer than earlier decades. That is what one would expect. If one has been climbing up a steep hill for a long time, one should not be surprised to find oneself higher up at the end of the climb than at the beginning. [...] In fact, the global sea-ice record shows virtually no change throughout the past 30 years, because the quite rapid loss of Arctic sea ice since the satellites were watching has been matched by a near-equally rapid gain of Antarctic sea ice. Indeed, when the summer extent of Arctic sea ice reached its lowest point in the 30-year record in mid-September 2007, just three weeks later the Antarctic sea extent reached a 30-year record high. The record low was widely reported; the corresponding record high was almost entirely unreported.

Related Links:

Inconvenient Temps: Global Temperatures Have Dropped 0.5C In The Last 12 Months — 150 years of global warming (0.7C) going down the drain!AccuWeather Meteorologist Joe Bastardi: ‘You wanna say 2010 was the warmest year ever… will get ready for 2011 — being the biggest drop ever’

Weather Underground Forecasting All Time Record Cold For The Northern Hemisphere Tonight at -92F — Previous coldest temp ever recorded in N. Hemisphere was -90F – January 14, 2011

Global sea ice anomaly is positive: Physicist: “Imagine that. Several decades of news reports about Armageddon and melting ice and after 30 years, we’re exactly where we were in 1980.”

Antarctic sea ice is nearing record high again as well. See: June 2010: Antarctic sea ice more than two standard deviations *above* normal; CO2 blamed

See July 2010: Antarctic sea ice peaks at third highest in the satellite

See: October 2009: Antarctic Summer Ice Melt at ‘lowest ever recorded in the satellite history’

‘Ice has flatlined in the North Pole, while it goes through the roof in the South Pole…The widely claimed polar meltdown continues to be nothing more than bad fiction’

Arctic chills down: ‘Arctic shows no signs of warming, according to the latest data from the Danish Meteorological Institute’s Centre for Ocean and Ice — ‘Casts doubt on climate models that had predicted a steady warming of the Arctic’

Warmist Scientist Mark Serreze Recants for stirring up Arctic ice scare stories: ‘In hindsight, probably too much was read into 2007, and I would take some blame for that…we read too much into it’

Analysis of 2007 ‘record’ Arctic ice low: ‘Ice was compacting…It lost area – while it gained thickness’

Climate Depot Arctic Fact Sheet – Get the latest peer-reviewed studies and analysis — Arctic Ice Changes in past 3 years due to ‘shifting winds’

Context….context…context.

You need to get out a lot more oakland.

Baxter Greene on January 30, 2011 at 10:42 AM

oakland on January 30, 2011 at 7:53 AM

Dude I guess you missed the stories of NOAA, NASA and the CRU faking their data and any climate science data coming from a .EDU web site will guaranteed be suspect. The folks working at most of our institutions of higher learning are socialists like yourself.

dogsoldier on January 30, 2011 at 10:46 AM

I mean seriously, that’s all we’re asking for … honest science.

darwin on January 30, 2011 at 10:39 AM

Exactly…

The bar has been set so low by the eco-fundamentalist that they could not get a flea to limbo underneath it.

Baxter Greene on January 30, 2011 at 10:47 AM

I keep referring to a couple villages recently emerging from glacial ice. In each case the village was discovered neatly left with tools prepared and stored for an expected spring that never came. Well it came after six hundred years.

GW Moonbat jump on that and say “See!! GLOBAL WARMING!!!”

I smile and ask, “Before the ice age and cars?” to which I get vacant stares in response.

They also don’t understand that every entity reporting data on this subject is a political entity and the people all have an agenda that has been exposed to the light of day and the scrutiny of reason.

dogsoldier on January 30, 2011 at 10:52 AM

The bar has been set so low by the eco-fundamentalist that they could not get a flea to limbo underneath it.

Baxter Greene on January 30, 2011 at 10:47 AM

What’s amazing is so many people still believe it.

It’s a slow process, but more and more people are beginning to understand that the majority of the media operates as a single propagandist entity.

darwin on January 30, 2011 at 10:59 AM

Still Oakland cannot explain away those scary hurricane warnings. Faith is so hard to overcome.

CWforFreedom on January 30, 2011 at 11:06 AM

Baxter: why can’t you tell me what YOU mean by “hockey stick” and “CAGW”? Can you answer this question for me? Or, at least point to the scientific literature that references these terms. Then, I can answer yours.

The fact that you still will not address the fraudulent exposure of the hockey stick graph, one of the main focus points for years by global warming enthusiasts,shows just how disingenuous and pathetic your stance is.

But just for the record…here is one of the central pieces of evidence trotted out by super climate experts like Al-Gore being blown to bits:

Huge Climate Story…. Honesty. UPDATE.
http://sonicfrog.net/?p=2849

Did anyone else just hear the “bump-bump” of the Jones bus running right over the infamous Hockey Stick?

Here is why that is important. If there was a warmer Medieval Warm Period, then the current warming could be more likely due to natural variation, instead of CO2 and man-made. as the models don’t account for this earlier warmer condition. At the very least, the “certainty” and of doom and gloom warming predictions is overstated, as the world may have been warmer and the world didn’t end.

UPDATE: Looks like the Jones bus has shifted into high gear and is doing donuts on the lawn of “consensus”.


Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

…he also stated that he “lost” the data to back up his conclusions that are central to the “hockey stick” theory.

“THE DOG ATE MY HOMEWORK!!!!!”

How scientific!!!!!!

Here is a through breakdown of the fraudulent “hockey stick” graph that oakland is playing games about.

Horse Hockey Climate Scientology: “Getting Rid” of the Medieval Warming Period

http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2008/12/25/horse-hockey-climate-scientology-%e2%80%9cgetting-rid%e2%80%9d-of-the-medieval-warming-period/

I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”

…GGGGGGGGGGGGreat.

This is “scientific code” for:
……”We have to falsify data to met our pre-determined conclusions so that we can get billions of dollars from the government.

I don’t have evidence, as I am not a scientist.

That sums up your position on this thread perfectly.

Look up for yourself if you are truly interested in scientific evidence.

….that’s hilarious coming from the guy who has demanded links and proof from others this whole thread.

oakland on January 30, 2011 at 7:13 AM

Baxter Greene on January 30, 2011 at 11:13 AM

What’s amazing is so many people still believe it.

darwin on January 30, 2011 at 10:59 AM

yea….reality is a hard concept for some people.

Baxter Greene on January 30, 2011 at 11:14 AM

OAKLAND– hmmm you go to bed thinking about AGW and you wake to it. Do you have ANY other interests? Seriously–gafl.

CWforFreedom on January 30, 2011 at 11:20 AM

On of my professors back in school had us “run” the numbers on building a plant “our company needed”. The project was worth 100 points.

The next week, we had to “run” the same numbers and show why the plant was the dumbest thing “our company” would ever do. It was worth 200 points. All the numbers and formulas had to be valid.

Needless to say that everyone produced the results expected. It was our assumptions on interest rates etc that changed.

His point:
Figures don’t lie but liars do figure.
You can bend the numbers to anything you want them to say through just minor changes in the assumptions.

barnone on January 30, 2011 at 11:27 AM

As Yogi Berra said, “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”

theCork on January 30, 2011 at 2:06 AM

Exactly right!!

…And we’re still waiting for the “Global Warmists” to show how they can accurately predict the past with their cockeyed ‘science’ which ignores the sun and water vapor!!!

landlines on January 30, 2011 at 11:42 AM

Long term con jobs rarely.. and I mean RARELY go undiscovered. This one’s life is about to end. The only other one I can think of that has lasted longer and unfortunately still continues to this day is Social Security.

44Magnum on January 30, 2011 at 12:25 PM

This proves we were right back in the ’70′s about Global Cooling. The earth is getting much colder! The real scary part is I forgot what we had to do to prevent it from happening. AlGore please call me and tell me what is to be done to prevent this terrible tragedy.

Herb on January 30, 2011 at 12:34 PM

The similarity to the IPCC’s 1995 graph is obvious. The world experienced a “warm” interval in the medieval era that dwarfs 20th century changes. The present-day climate appears to be simply a recovery from the cold years of the “Little Ice Age.”

Figure 1

Baxter, Darwin, etc., this is the kind of thing I notice when you quote non-scientific sources (as you have done consistently). This paragraph occurred in your reference http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2008/12/25/horse-hockey-climate-scientology-%e2%80%9cgetting-rid%e2%80%9d-of-the-medieval-warming-period/

The graph below it only labeled the approximate year. It had no “y-axis” label, so one couldn’t tell what was being graphed. The discussion throughout was only an opinion of the writer and was not a peer-reviewed work.

There are numerous articles you and others quote, particularly from the Guardian in the UK that are quite well-known to have a particular bias in the matter (nothing wrong with that, though). However, these aren’t scientific publications, and aren’t subjected to the normal methods of rigor and review.

I have presented sites in postings in this thread. They are created by professionals and experts in their fields. They are open to criticism and error-checking. If you have any scientific information by experts and researchers that have been through the process of vetting by other experts, then please share. However, all of this “spin” journalism is basically worthless to folks who want to know what is happpening.

And, if the methods that NOAA or NASA aren’t according to established scientific practice, then please show me professional-level scientific work that explains exactly why they are not. Broadly dismissing all data and analysis by agencies whose business it is to properly collect and analyze data as “lies”, “worthless”, “bogus” doesn’t convince me of anything.

oakland on January 30, 2011 at 1:15 PM

In order to have any credibility, you need to admit that the Mann Hockey Stick used by Al Gore was merely a regional (not global) plot of temperatures and has been materially debunked.

You also need to admit that global warming will never be a problem unless water vapor feedback is positive.

Blink,
I am not a Gore man. He is a self-promoter. I have never endorsed anything he has said in his promotions. So, do me the favor of at least keeping the Goracle out of the exchanges with me. OK?

As for the “hockey stick”, I have no comment, as this is not, to my knowledge, a term that is used by scientists speaking scientifically, and your reference to “An Inconvenient Truth” isn’t one that I take seriously as scientific work.

Also, as far as “vapor”, I will not admit that there is no problem unless this is a positive mechanism, as there are other potential positive mechanisms as well – such as the release of methane from tunra-encapsulated methylhydrate clathrates.

If you read the scientific literature, the major unknowns include the feedback mechanisms (albedo/cloud cover, vapor, ect.). But, to go on releasing gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere when these mechanisms are not well understood, and have a real change of being not advantageous to the human species is, in my view, imprudence in its utmost form.

oakland on January 30, 2011 at 2:19 PM

Surely, climate change occurs without our help. Do we really want to help the change along and augment nature’s own effects, and produce a more variable climate system? The main issue is agriculture (putting food on the table). So, can we rely on farmers to adapt to changing climate patterns and provide us the food in the quantities that were are accustomed to?
oakland on January 30, 2011 at 8:48 AM

still my favorite thought process of the insane

worried obout agriculture yet misses that his commie buddies have destroyed just that in California because of a, at this moment, an inedible smelt

stupid ass

Sonosam on January 30, 2011 at 2:19 PM

Are you backing away from your claims of more precipitation? Are you now, like all the leaders of the warmists religion, changing your claim to – global warming will cause both drought AND increased rain?

nope

read the literature I cited earlier in the day

oakland on January 30, 2011 at 2:20 PM

But, to go on releasing gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere when these mechanisms are not well understood, and have a real change of being not advantageous to the human species is, in my view, imprudence in its utmost form.

I wonder how we rate next to volcanos?

Sonosam on January 30, 2011 at 2:48 PM

Also, as far as “vapor”, I will not admit that there is no problem unless this is a positive mechanism, as there are other potential positive mechanisms as well – such as the release of methane from tunra-encapsulated methylhydrate clathrates.

oakland on January 30, 2011 at 2:19 PM

Are you saying the Earth didn’t release buried methane during the medieval warm period? Apparently you guys believe this happening will cause runaway global warming, turning the planet into Venus II.

And yet it somehow cooled off the last time the Earth warmed up (and, amazingly, the hundreds of times before that.) In fact, it went from being so warm and toasty the Vikings were able to grow grapes in England. Then it got so cold, in the late 1700′s, they have records of several years without a summer. And then, in the mid-1800′s, it began warming back up.

Kind of makes you think the Earth has some kind of self-correcting features, don’t it?

Squiggy on January 30, 2011 at 3:38 PM

Kind of makes you think the Earth has some kind of self-correcting features, don’t it?

Squiggy on January 30, 2011 at 3:38 PM

It also makes me thing that there are complexities and patterns far beyond our current understanding. If true, then it’s the absolute height of audacity to believe that we can attribute causes to these patterns and complexities.

Or, more simply: we don’t yet even know how much we don’t know yet.

massrighty on January 30, 2011 at 3:53 PM

I mean seriously, that’s all we’re asking for … honest science.

darwin on January 30, 2011 at 10:39 AM

This just proves how utterly unthinking, unfeeling and downright mean those on the right are. You keep on insisting on the leftards providing something they cannot possibly give. You should just let them make siht up and spout stupid insane drivel without proof. I mean how could they possibly provide accurate data when it doesn’t even exist. Don’t you understand that what they’re doing is because they feeeeelll so much more keenly than you do? Not only that but what about the children? When you provide accurate scientific data to disprove their idiotic tree hugging theories it’s just mean. When they fake stuff to prove the same thing it’s because it’s for your own good. Don’t you understand that? To make a point the mean spirited conservatives on this thread alone have gone and unnecessarily hurt the feelings of at least two dimwitted know nothing gaia worshipers. This one instance of vitriolic rhetoric will probably cause the Earth’s temperature to rise at an unprecedented and totally unexpected rate during the next decade. I wouldn’t be surprised if some loony were to go completely nuts and become violent just because of it. You guys are so mean and stuff.

Oldnuke on January 30, 2011 at 4:20 PM

Oldnuke on January 30, 2011 at 4:20 PM

Yeah? Well, I didn’t get a little red tricycle when I was three, so I’ve got good reason to be mean – so there! :)

OldEnglish on January 30, 2011 at 5:56 PM

Yeah? Well, I didn’t get a little red tricycle when I was three, so I’ve got good reason to be mean – so there! :)

OldEnglish on January 30, 2011 at 5:56 PM

You poor thing, I feeeellll your pain. I’ll bet gaia wept. It was most likely due to the Tea partiers or perhaps Bush was at fault.

Oldnuke on January 30, 2011 at 7:00 PM

You’re twisting science to meet your own ideological convictions. The overwhelming consensus among top scientists remains firmly behind global warming…

bayam on January 29, 2011 at 5:31 PM

And these same scientists conduct research, right? And that research is funded by grants? And to get the grants, you state you are studying… what? …that global warming is a hoax? :)

There’s a reason that global warming is considered a “green” science… and it has nothing to do with the environment!

dominigan on January 30, 2011 at 9:59 PM

Kind of makes you think the Earth has some kind of self-correcting features, don’t it?

Squiggy on January 30, 2011 at 3:38 PM

The problem with progressives, is that they are statists! They don’t consider that changing a variable changes everything associated with it.

In politics, progressives argue for constantly raising tax rates, failing to understand that increased taxes harm businesses and cause them to slow/halt hiring or go out of business. And many new businesses never start up, unable to break the barrier threshold. And thus revenues drop when taxes are continually raised past the Laffer curve. Increasing taxes too much lowers Government revenue to fund programs. It’s counter-productive.

In science, progressives argue that increased carbon dioxide will drastically increase the earth’s temperature. But they ignore bad data collected from heat islands that grew over the last decade. They ignore that carbon dioxide is a small factor in greenhouse gases, when compared to water vapor that accounts for more than 90% of the greenhouse effect. They ignore the solar cycles and how the climate has changed over hundreds of years. They never consider that increased carbon dioxide is GOOD FOR PLANTS, and that they grow faster, creating more oxygen, negating the increase. They don’t understand that our environment is self correcting and that there is very little that humans can do to “destroy our planet”.

dominigan on January 30, 2011 at 10:10 PM

But, to go on releasing gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere when these mechanisms are not well understood

oakland on January 30, 2011 at 2:19 PM

I didn’t do that well in High School biology, and even I know that plants take in carbon dioxide during photosynthesis and produce oxygen.

Seems to me that we already know the mechanisms, just that there are “scientists” who are playing ignorant to get more of their own “green”…

dominigan on January 30, 2011 at 10:15 PM

When you have some like actual science come and see me. I -am- a scientist. (albeit a computer scientist)

oakland on January 30, 2011 at 7:35 AM

I work with computers also, and global warming is crap… kind of like all the vendor hype around new tech acronyms so they can sell the same old technology covered with another layer.

dominigan on January 30, 2011 at 10:21 PM

The main issue is agriculture (putting food on the table). So, can we rely on farmers to adapt to changing climate patterns and provide us the food in the quantities that were are accustomed to?
oakland on January 30, 2011 at 8:48 AM

If you are serious in your above claim, then it would be disingenuous to continue insinuating that global warming is a bad thing!

During the Medieval Warm Period between the ninth and 14th centuries, farmers benefited from TWO growing seasons instead of the normal one, allowing them to grow twice the food.

Why are we trying to “prevent” global warming again? To starve 3rd world countries? …if not, then why?

dominigan on January 30, 2011 at 10:25 PM

You’re twisting science to meet your own ideological convictions. The overwhelming consensus among top scientists remains firmly behind global warming…

bayam on January 29, 2011 at 5:31 PM

Talk about the kettle calling the pot black. Regardless, even if your claim is true, it means nothing. Science is not a democracy. If every single scientist on earth “believes” in global warming, it does not make it a scientific fact. Show us the science. Release the raw data. Provide a theory backed up with facts that can be re-tested by others. None of that has ever been done. So there is no science and no global warming.

Why is your side so against actual science? Why the need to obfiscate and lie? Because there is no science to prove what you need to prove to enact major socialistic laws – which is what this is about. This has nothing to do with “the environment” or “science”. The green movement was hijacked by communists in the 70s and continues following that path today. Even a founder of Greenpeace admits this.

You have no science to back up anything you say. All you have is “belief” and “consensus”. No “scientific” body ahs ever released any raw data to allow others to study the claims. That alone demonstrates that “climate change” is nothing but a scam. No other area of science would ever accept such b.s. as science. It is a joke and everyone who spouts it is either a liar or a fool, or both. I’m pretty sure that Bayam and Oakland fall into the latter category. I think they are truly hoodwinked that some actual science exists, but every time one of the warmists claims are shown to be totally false, they cover their ears and lie as fast as they can to try and pretend it doesn’t exist.

Monkeytoe on January 31, 2011 at 8:51 AM

how much debris covers the glacier’s surface.

Been arguing this with family members. Dirt and dark objects absorb solar “heat”. As it heats up, it melts the ice. In turn as the ice melts more heat absorbing particles trapped in the glacier are exposed. This speeds up the melting. The more it melts the faster it melts.

Greed on January 31, 2011 at 1:05 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3