Climate change
Is everyone named George an idiot? It is unfortunate that there is not some way to bar unscrupulous and dishonest people like George Lilly from posting erroneous information, such as: "Remember, at that time, the establishment consensus was that we were heading into a “new ice age.” The consensus, of course, was that the few who claimed a new ice age was coming were in error. The hype mainly resulted from a Newsweek article which Newsweek belatedly, in 2006, recanted. Can somebody please tell me where the real Americans are to be found? Georgo Lilly manages to munge together global-warming, old media hype, somebody from an old environmental group, “world government”, and evidently after mixing it all up in a big soup, what is he actually saying? Sweet nothing! I ask again, where the heck are all those real Americans, those pragmatic, clear-thinking, and innovative people? Was it all just a scam, or did they go away? We can either listen to people like Al Gore, Bango, Truth, just sayin', etc... Or we can get it straight from the horses mouth since the IPCC is the concensus on the subject: From Kevin Trenberth, head of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research and one of the top advisors of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): "None of the models used by IPCC is initialised to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate. "The state of the oceans, sea ice and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models. "There is neither an El Nino sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that replicates the recent past; yet these are critical modes of variability that affect Pacific rim countries and beyond . . . the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors" and "regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialised". GCMs "assume linearity" which "works for global forced variations, but it cannot work for many aspects of climate, especially those related to the water cycle . . . the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate". George - you go girl!!! BTW- you forgot to mention the once credible theories that the Earth is flat, cigarettes are good for you, cocaine is not addictive, etc. All of that proves that these scientists are just lemmings with a herd mentality. You really nailed it George.... well somebody who calls himself"truth"wouldn't know what it is if it bit him in his butt George the Prideful Lilly dragged out this quote from '69: "From Paul Ehrlich as quoted in Ramparts magazine; “Hundreds of millions of people will soon perish in smog disasters in New York and LosAngeles ... the oceans will die of DDT poisoning by 1979 ... the U.S. life expectancy will drop to 42 years by 1980, due to cancer epidemics.” " What he didn't tell you is that the environmental movement really got going in the 1970's, including the creation of the EPA and all sorts of clean air and water standards. That is not to say that the predictions in the quote aren't hyperbolic, but rather that talking about worst-case scenarios is what is sometimes necessary to steer policy in the direction of environmental health. That's the value of Chicken Little. Better to be over-prepared than under no? What's the deal with George Lilly of Denver? Is he David Cook of Loveland's summer replacement or something? Not that I'm--necessarily--complaining, mind you. At least his letters make for lively forums. On Wednesday, the Chicago Tribune printed a letter to the editor informing the world that ice cream tastes good. (I'm not making that up.) So sophisticated, those Chicagoans! This is kinda long but you have my permission to skip it if you like. God know how many times the same personal opinions of posters have been posted in the numerous threads on global warming. Though some posters are well-read on the issue, none qualify as experts, and their personal takes on the issue are not a substitute for the personal takes of experts. So, for the benefit of all, I have modestly decided to put an end to the debate for all time by posting the personal take of Kevin Trenberth, the world renowned scientist who is one of the IPCC masterminds. Please don't just thank me, instead send money. What's his name has quoted some scientific jargon by Trenberth which neither he nor any of us really understands; the Trenberth conclusions I quote below are in simple,understandable English, although the details my good friend Keven puts forth to support his conclusions are sometimes difficult to follow. If you have any questions about his remarks, please just ask me and I will gladly clear it all up for you, and, and this is unusual for me, at no charge for my time, although donations are always appreciated. And now, without further fanfare, are the facts: Observations of climate change: Following a detailed diagnosis of the vital signs of the planet Earth, it has become evident that the planet is running a “fever” and the prognosis is that it is apt to get much worse. “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and it is “very likely” due to human activities. *** Warming of the climate system is unequivocal as is now clear from an increasing body of evidence showing discernible physically consistent changes. These include increases in global average air temperature; atmospheric temperatures above the surface, surface and sub-surface ocean water temperature; widespread melting of snow; decreases in Arctic sea-ice extent and thickness; decreases in glacier and small ice cap extent and mass; and rising global mean sea level. The observed surface warming at global and continental scales is also consistent with reduced duration of freeze seasons; increased heat waves; increased atmospheric water vapor content and heavier precipitation events; changes in patterns of precipitation; increased drought; increases in intensity of hurricane activity, and changes in atmospheric winds. That is, the IPCC Fourth Assessment finds that the Earth is warming, and that major components of the Earth’s climate system are already responding to that warming. This wide variety of observations gives a very high degree of confidence to the overall findings. Moreover these changes are now simulated in climate models for the past 100 years to a reasonable degree, adding confidence to future projections. The summary is followed by a few personal remarks about the meaning of these findings. The iconic summary statement of the observations section of the IPCC (2007) report is “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level.” The language here is carefully chosen to reinforce the view that a. Temperature and related Instrumental observations over the past 157 years show that temperatures at the surface (Fig. 1) have risen globally, with important regional variations. For the global average, warming in the last century has occurred in two phases, from the 1910s to the 1940s (0.35°C or 0.63ºF), and more strongly from the 1970s to the present (0.55°C or 1.0ºF) at a rate of about 0.16ºC (0.3ºF) per decade. An increasing rate of warming has taken place over the last 25 years, and 11 of the 12 warmest years on record have occurred in the past 12 years. Indeed, the 6 years since the TAR are among the 7 warmest years on record. The total warming since the 1800s is about 0.76ºC (1.4ºF). Globally, 2006 ranks 6 th and it was the warmest on record in the United States. Sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are also increasing, however land areas are warming much faster than the oceans since 1970. Two possible issues with the surface temperature record – urban heat island effects, and discrepancies with balloon-based and satellite measurements – have been extensively studied in the 2007 IPCC report. The urban heat island effects are real but local, and have been found to have a negligible influence on the overall surface temperature record. New analyses of balloon-borne and satellite measurements of lower- and mid-tropospheric temperature show warming rates that are similar to the surface temperature record and consistent within their respective uncertainties, largely reconciling a discrepancy noted in the TAR. The 2007 IPCC report essentially removes these two issues as serious sources of uncertainty for the global surface temperature record. Since 1950, the number of heat waves globally has increased and widespread increases have occurred in the numbers of warm nights. Cold days, cold nights and frost have generally become rarer. Decreases are found in the length of the freeze season of river and lake ice. Temperature at the top of the permafrost layer has increased by up to 3°C since the 1980s in the Arctic. The maximum area covered by seasonally frozen ground has decreased by about 7% in the Northern Hemisphere since 1900 and this value is up to 15% in spring. The average temperature of global ocean water from the surface to a depth of 700 m increased significantly from 1961 to 2003, indicating that the ocean is absorbing most of the heat being added to the climate system. This causes seawater to expand and is estimated to have contributed 0.42 mm per yr to the average sea level rise from 1961 to 2003, and 1.8 mm per yr from 1993 to 2003. Sea-ice extents have decreased in the Arctic since 1978, particularly in spring and summer (7.4% per decade), and patterns of the changes are consistent with regions showing a temperature increase, although changes in winds are also a major factor. Sea-ice extents were at record low values in 2005, which was also the warmest year since records began in 1850 for the Arctic north of 65°N. There have also been decreases in sea-ice thickness. In contrast to the Arctic, Antarctic sea ice does not exhibit any significant trend since the end of the 1970s, which is consistent with the lack of trend in surface temperature south of 65°S over that period. However, along the Antarctic Peninsula, where significant warming has occurred, progressive break up of ice shelves has occurred beginning in the late 1980s, culminating in the break up of the Larsen- B ice shelf in 2002. The observed surface temperature increases are consistent with the observed nearly worldwide reduction in glacier and small ice cap mass and extent in the 20 th century. In addition, flow speed has recently increased for some Greenland and Antarctic outlet glaciers, which drain ice from the interior, and melting of Greenland has increased after about 2000. Glaciers and ice caps respond not only to temperatures but also to changes in precipitation, and both winter accumulation and summer melting have increased over the last half century in association with temperature increases. In some regions moderately increased accumulation observed in recent decades is consistent with changes in atmospheric circulation and associated increases in winter precipitation (e.g., southwestern Norway, parts of coastal Alaska, Patagonia, and the South Island of New Zealand) even though increased ablation has led to marked declines in mass balances in Alaska and Patagonia. Tropical glacier changes are synchronous with higher latitude ones and all have shown declines in recent decades. Decreases in glaciers and ice caps contributed to sea level rise by 0.5 mm per yr from 1961 to 2003 and 0.8 mm per yr from 1993 to 2003. Taken together, shrinkage of the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica has contributed 0.4 mm per yr to sea level rise over 1993 to 2003. Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 mm per over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster during 1993-2003, when truly global values have been measured from altimeters in space, at about 3.1 mm per yr. Hence about 60% of this is from ocean warming and expansion, and 40% is from melting land ice, adding to the ocean volume. The observation of consistent sea level rise over several decades, and also an increasing rate of sea level rise in the last decade or so, is probably the single best metric of the cumulative global warming that we have experienced to date. There is really no explanation other than global warming for the observed sea level rise. The average atmospheric water vapor content has increased over land and ocean as well as in the upper troposphere, and over the global oceans this is estimated to be 4% since 1970. The increase is broadly consistent with the extra water that warmer air can hold and amounts to a fairly constant relative humidity. # The added water vapor also adds to the greenhouse effect and roughly doubles that due to carbon dioxide, providing a powerful positive feedback to climate change. The observed surface warming at global and continental scales is consistent with observed changes in sub-surface ocean water temperature; decreases in sea-ice extent and thickness; decreases in glacier and small ice cap extent and mass; sea-level rise; reduced duration of freeze seasons, increased heat waves; and increased atmospheric water vapor content. That is, the IPCC Fourth Assessment finds that the Earth is warming, and that major components of the Earth’s climate system are already responding to that warming. This wide variety of observations gives a very high degree of confidence to the overall findings. b. Precipitation and related The 2007 IPCC report finds that changes are occurring in the amount, intensity, frequency, and type of precipitation in ways that are also consistent with a warming planet. These aspects of precipitation generally exhibit large natural variability (compared to temperature trends), and El Niño and changes in atmospheric circulation patterns have a substantial influence, making it harder to detect trends in the observational record. A key ingredient in changes in character of precipitation is the observed increase in water vapor and thus the supply of atmospheric moisture to all storms, increasing the intensity of precipitation events. Indeed, widespread increases in heavy precipitation events and risk of flooding have been observed, even in places where total amounts have decreased. Hence the frequency of heavy rain events has increased in most places but so too has episodic heavy snowfall events that are thus associated with warming. Snow cover has decreased in many Northern Hemisphere regions, particularly in spring, and more precipitation is falling as rain instead of snow. These changes are consistent with changes in permafrost, noted above. Long-term trends from 1900 to 2005 have been observed in total precipitation amounts over many large regions. Significantly increased precipitation has been observed in eastern parts of North and South America, northern Europe and northern and central Asia. Drying has been observed in the Sahel, the Mediterranean, southern Africa and parts of southern Asia. Precipitation is highly variable spatially and temporally. Robust long term trends have not been observed for other large regions. The pattern of precipitation change is one of increases generally at higher northern latitudes (because as the atmosphere warms it holds more moisture) and drying in the tropics and subtropics over land. Basin-scale changes in ocean salinity provide further evidence of changes in the Earth’s water cycle, with freshening at high latitudes and increased salinity in the subtropics. More intense and longer droughts have been observed over wider areas since the 1970s, particularly in the tropics and subtropics. Increased drying due to higher temperatures and decreased precipitation have contributed to these changes, with the latter the dominant factor. The regions where droughts have occurred are determined largely by changes in sea surface temperature (SST), especially in the tropics (such as during El Niño), through changes in the atmospheric circulation and precipitation. In the western United States, diminishing snow pack and subsequent summer soil moisture reductions have also been a factor. In Australia and Europe, direct links to warming have been inferred through the extreme nature of high temperatures and heat waves accompanying drought. Satellite records suggest a global trend towards more intense and longer lasting tropical cyclones (including hurricanes and typhoons) since about 1970, correlated with observed warming of tropical SSTs. There is no clear trend in the annual number of tropical cyclones globally although a substantial increase has occurred in the North Atlantic after 1994. There are concerns about the quality of tropical cyclone data, particularly before the satellite era. Further, strong multidecadal variability is observed and complicates detection of long term trends in tropical cyclone activity. c Synthesis across variables In summary, global mean temperatures have increased since the 19 th century, especially since the mid- 1970s. Temperatures have increased nearly everywhere over land, and SSTs have also increased, reinforcing the evidence from land. However, global warming does not mean that temperatures increase steadily or uniformly, indeed temperatures have increased neither monotonically, nor in a spatially uniform manner, especially over shorter time intervals. The atmospheric circulation has also changed: in particular increasing westerly wind flow is observed in most seasons in both hemispheres. In the Northern Hemisphere this # brought milder maritime air into Europe and much of high-latitude Asia from the North Atlantic in winter, enhancing warming there. In the Southern Hemisphere, where the ozone hole has played a role, it has resulted in cooling over 1971-2000 for parts of the interior of Antarctica but large warming in the Antarctic Peninsula region and Patagonia. Temperatures generally have risen more than average where flow has become more poleward, and less than average or even cooled where flow has become more equatorward, reflecting atmospheric patterns of variability. Over land in low latitudes and in summer more generally, there is a strong tendency for either hot and dry or cool and wet. Hence areas that have become wetter, such as the eastern United States and Argentina, have not warmed as much as other land areas. Increased precipitation is associated with increases in cloud and surface wetness. Thus more heat goes into increased evapotranspiration and less into raising temperature at the surface in wetter conditions. The three main ocean basins are unique and contain very different wind systems, SST patterns and ocean currents, leading to vastly different variability associated, for instance, with El Niño in the Pacific, and the ocean currents including the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic. Consequently the oceans have not warmed uniformly, especially at depth. SSTs in the tropics have warmed at different rates and help drive, through coupling with tropical convection and winds, distinctive wave patterns known as teleconnections around the world. This has changed the atmospheric circulation and the monsoons. Changes in precipitation and storm tracks are not as well documented but clearly respond to these changes on interannual and decadal timescales. When precipitation increases over the ocean, as it has in recent years in the tropics, it decreases over land, although it has increased over land at higher latitudes. Droughts have increased over many tropical and mid-latitude land areas, in part because of decreased precipitation over land since the 1970s but also from increased drying arising from increased atmospheric demand associated with warming. Many of these observed changes are now simulated in climate models run for the past 100 years, adding confidence to understanding of the relationship with the agents that alter the climate, and human- induced changes in atmospheric composition, in particular, as is documented in other IPCC chapters. Some implications The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to show that specific global and regional changes resulting from global warming are already upon us. Uncertainties remain, and new efforts at reprocessing past satellite records for phenomena such as hurricanes are required, but the 2007 IPCC report definitively shows that the climate is changing. “Warming is unequivocal” and it is “very likely” caused by human activities. In my personal opinion as a climate scientist, the IPCC report strongly implies the need for a three pronged approach of mitigation, adaptation, and maintaining and improving climate observing and information systems. While there are uncertainties (although these cut both ways) and some changes arising from global warming may be benign or even beneficial, at least in some places and in the short run, the IPCC report shows that the rate of change as projected exceeds anything seen in nature in the past 10,000 years. Moreover, the inertia of the climate system and the long life of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere mean that we are already committed to a significant level of climate change. I believe that mitigation actions are certainly needed to significantly reduce the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and lessen the magnitude and rate of climate change. At the same time, the 2007 IPCC report makes clear that even aggressive mitigation would yield benefits many decades in the future, and that no amount of mitigation can avoid significant climate change. I believe it is apt to be disruptive in many ways. Hence it is also vital to plan to cope with the changes, such as enhanced droughts, heat waves and wild fires, and stronger downpours and risk of flooding. Managing water resources will be a major challenge in the future. Adapting to climate change and reducing vulnerability is essential. This means that we should adapt to climate change by planning for it and making better predictions of likely outcomes on several time horizons. Finally, although not reported by the IPCC, my experience in working with observations of climate change has led me to urge the Committee to address the considerable shortcomings in our observing systems. Weather observing systems are continually used for climate purposes for which they were not designed. Moreover, weather stations come and go and changes are made without regard to the effect on the climate record. Changes in observing systems, especially from satellites, as new satellites and instruments are launched, create artifacts in the climate record. Loss of Earth observing satellites is also of concern, as documented in the recent National Research Council (2007) decadal survey. Ground based observations are not being adequately kept up in many countries. Calibration of climate records is critical. Small changes over long times are characteristic of climate change but they occur in the midst of large variations associated with weather and natural climate variations such as El Niño. Yet the climate is changing and an imperative is to track the changes and the causes as they occur. We need to build a system based on these observations to inform decision makers on what is happening, and why, and what the predictions are for the future on several time horizons. truth, Sorry didn't read past the words, "verly likely." Not scientific but it does remind me of my college chem lab days. If we were short of time we would read the lab directions and the base text in the textbook and work backwards from a result to the data and then turn the experiment as fast as we could not caring if we did it right or not. Usually got caught too because anytime that data are too much in agreement they are suspicious. If he was unsure the prof made us re-do the experiment in another way from a book only he had access to and if we had cheated we bombed. Let the GW crowd openly re-create their research models in known areas chosen at random by skeptics. Let the results be analyzed openly and repeat this often enough to validate the models. IF global warming is real we have time to make calm decisions with a good examination of their consequences. It's going to take a lot to overcome the doomsday syndrome so jubilantly embraced with every dire prediction whether scientific or not. The same crowd of elites that embrace GW are the same ones who have been in the jubilant crowd. Time is available to prove to critics the truth or error of global warming and there will still be plenty of time to do the small bit extra we can add to the normal enviornmental work we do. Let's get more light and less heat. You started this burst of sanity so maybe we can sustain it. momma y: "truth, Sorry didn't read past the words, "verly likely." That pretty well fits your profile, momma y. "write long, read short". One day you'll get over the fear of learning something new. Truth said Spoken like a true graduate from Berkley. As long as it makes you feel good then its real and valid. Facts from those in the field of climitologu be damned. Lets all follow Al '''cry baby" Gore and his legions of self indulged feel good followers. Truth be damned!!!! Yes 'truth' you have ended the debate for all time. Now leave. Hey, momma y, a funny story came to mind this morning as I was sitting in the bathtub admiring myself. You'll "very likely" want to hear it. See, this young mother, a good looker by the way, was in the kitchen dutifully fixing supper for her little child, who was outside playing. Suddenly, a handsome young man came bursting in the door, almost knocking the young mother to the floor. He yelled at the top of his voice, "HEY, YOUNG MOTHER, YOUR CHILD IS OUTSIDE PLAYING IN THE STREET. HE "VERY LIKELY" WILL GET HIT BY A CAR." But the young mother smiled and said in her sweet, dulcet voice, "it's OK; it's only 'very likely' my beautiful baby will get hit by a car." P.S. I should also mention that the handsome young man's name was Truth and that he had already taken the beautiful child out of the street. I won't embarrass you by saying what the lovely young mother's name was. Truth: Bravo! momma y said: "The same crowd of elites that embrace GW are the same ones who have been in the jubilant crowd. " It's both hilarious and scary how the word "elite" has been adopted by ignorant people as a pejorative. The word means: 1. The choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons. So effectively, what momma y is saying is: Man induced Global Warming is thought to be real by the best and brightest among us. It's a syndrome among people who are anti-science and anti-progress to turn the meaning of words on their head. The word "liberal" is another example of this. Charles B, And of course, the word, "conservative" too! Why are we all taking what the U.N. says as the gospel truth? From the oil for food debacle to the mess in Darfur, how long untill everyone openes their eyes to the fact that they cannot be trusted. Last year they started a new panel on human rights and proceeded to spend that entire year blaming Israel for Palistinian abuses, while Islamic radicals butchered thousands of tribal Africans in Darfur. Why? Because the U.N. has a corrupt agenda produced by corrupt humans. And to think that the IPCC is any different, well, you would be fooling yourself. Money is the root of all evils, and there is a lot of money behind this swindel as well. "This new craze is really no different than the global coolong in the 70's." That would be a valid point (except, of course, for the spelling of cooling) if technical science had not advanced any since the '70s. Try telling that to all those people out there standing in line for hours for the honor and privilege of buying an iphone. Charles B: Yes Charles, the best, brightest... and well compensated to boot. KW: Let's compare the salaries of Big Oil Executives and Scientist studying our Climate. Do you have anything relevant or interesting to say KW? Thanks George; thanks to all who have the guts to send a letter to the editor for publishing. I get enough flax in my responses. Corp execs aren't paid by grants (tax dollars) nor can they force me to pay into their pet projects I don't agree with. If elect to buy their products I do so by MY choice and no one elses. Please explain your rationale for such an absurd comparison. My question above is for you CB. If you care to answer. KW: Not all climate research is funded by your tax dollars. What about the vast majority that isn't? My quesition goes to who has more to gain: Oil executives by minimizing the threat of global warming? Or scientists by falsifying their studies? I guess your answer to my question: "Do you have anything relevant or interesting to say?" Is "no". Sorry my typing skills are not to your standard. CB - If it was creditable science they wouldn't need to falsify their studies. DUH! The fact that you consider your stance on this issue to be "revelant or interesting" seems falsified as well. But hey, whatever flosts your boat. As I said, where the heck are all those Americans? Momma said ” IF global warming is real we have time to make calm decisions with a good examination of their consequences” Depends where you live. KW’s cherry-picking is just too precious when compared to the quote from Trenberth that Truth gave. It also highlights what I have often explained to that garden-gargoyle called KW. Selection bias is a deadly source of error and hunting for only the little snippets that appear to bolster what one already believes is a fine example of selection-bias at work. Mr. Blogassualt takes the view that everything the UN does is suspect, and besides that he is guilty of the fallacy of construction, one might wonder if he has ever really looked at all the things the UN does in science. Like WHO for instance. I personally like the free statistical software they give to anybody who bothers to ask for it. He closes with ” The Earth is heating up, but it has done this before, long ago when some people believe we were swinging from trees.” Yep, heated and cooled many times, mainly cooled though as most planets eventually do, but here’s the real kicker – what we are seeing now is thought to be a novel event, never seen before. This time we are doing it, isn’t that a blast? Truth, Charles, Hans good work, keep it up me hearties! OK Bango, one of the top advisors to the IPCC admits that the computer models being used don't truly represent the actual climate conditions on this planet and you accuse me of cherry picking my data. Sounds to me like you've already done the cherry picking and refuse to accept that your position is built on a false premise. Your concensus is fine in theory but acting on it without further evidence has greater potential for becoming disasterous than waiting until we know a heck of a lot more about the subject. Now, please continue with the name calling and insults. From our exhanges, that seems to be where your true talent lies KW said shortsightedly: "Your concensus is fine in theory but acting on it without further evidence has greater potential for becoming disasterous than waiting until we know a heck of a lot more about the subject." I'll just refer you to truth's post above: June 30, 2007 07:09 AM Sorry Charles. I understand the judges are rushing for a verdict, but the jury is still out on this one. To stiffle dissent without frank discussion flies in the face of science (and logic) itself. KW said to me: "To stiffle dissent without frank discussion flies in the face of science (and logic) itself." Who's trying to stifle dissent? Is your IP blocked from posting? It won't be long before you'll see this posted: "For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame." This is one of several assertions that a number of Gore's claims have been disproved. The facts, if you please: The evidence is that the eastern Himalayans are shrinking. The Journal article is about the western Himalayans not shrinking. This is from the Journal's abstract of the article: "The observed downward trend in summer temperature and runoff is consistent with the observed thickening and expansion of Karakoram glaciers, in contrast to widespread decay and retreat in the eastern Himalayas. This suggests that the western Himalayas are showing a different response to global warming than other parts of the globe." You will see that the Journal article accepts the fact of global warming. I haven't tried to check on the other claims about what Gore says being disproved, but the lack of integrity about the Himalayans suggests caution in accepting the other claims. Of course, you can count on some of the posters having no interest in the facts, only the propaganda. Just remember to duck and cover under your desks and have some chinese fish while your waiting for the world to end. Truth I should have said that the words "very likely" in any scientific pronouncement are suspect. Even with that Global Warming may be factual. What is most debatable is the human contribution and the amount of realistic solutions available. As for that young mama a better scenario is :the man bursts in telling her that her child is playing in a field where the city council has been asked to approve a road and it is very likely that if it is built and if the child plays there the child might get hit by a car. But the young man has already moved the child and the young mother glares at him and orders him out of her house. Besides, you did give us permission to skip reading your long post. I am a skeptic waiting for scientific proof, not theories, and practical solutions that are not worse than the problem. [url]http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article[/url] CB: "Who's trying to stifle dissent?" You can't possibly be serious. Do you get your news selectively or is just your memory selective? KW: I'll ask again: Who is trying to stifle dissent? You act incredulous, but offer no examples. Typical for you. CB - Are you trying to say you haven't heard ANYTHING about people being stripped of their grant money for speaking out against GW? Willam Gray at CSU ring a bell? Or the calling for meteorologists to be stripped of their credentials if they dare to voice dissent? Or the Oregon governor wanting to fire the state climatologists for not jumping on board with the GW crowd? What about the claims by the GW crowd that "the debate is over?" How can you claim ignorance about all this? As I stated earlier, this flies in the face of science. It also gives great reason to doubt the theories. KW: Provide links, citations, etc. or how am I to judge the validity of your claims? Oops, Gore had it wrong! Gore noted that the Kilimanjaro glaciers are shrinking. True. He also concluded that the shrinkage is due to global warming. While there have been those scientists who have taken this position, a study printed in the Scientific American concludes otherwise, though with some reservations. While the Chicago Sun-Times propaganda article cited by KW, tries to make a big deal out of this, it is clearly a propaganda article because it nowhere mentions what the Scientific American has to say about global warming and glaciers. The Scientific American article makes very clear the point that glaciers in general are shrinking because of global warming. So, while Gore’s statement about Kilimanjaro was indeed based on scientific reports which the Scientific American article disputes. he was nonetheless incorrect about Kilimanjaro However, and the Sun-Times article egregiously ignores this, he was correct about the bigger and more important point that many glaciers around the world are shrinking because of global warming. Here are some quotes from the Scientific American article (most assuredly not from the Sun-Times propaganda article): "The Shrinking Glaciers of Kilimanjaro: Can Global Warming Be Blamed?" "The Kibo [the highest glacier on Kilimanjaro] ice cap, a "poster child" of global climate change, is being starved of snowfall and depleted by solar radiation" "THE SHRINKING GLACIER IS AN ICONIC IMAGE OF GLOABAL CLIMATE CHANGE. Rising temperatures may reshape vegetation, but such changes are visually subtle on the landscape; by contrast, a vast glacier retreated to a fraction of its former grandeur presents stunning evidence of how climate shapes the face of the planet. Viewers of the film An Inconvenient Truth are startled by paired before-and-after photos of vanishing glaciers around the world. If those were not enough, the scars left behind by the retreat of these mountain-grinding giants testify to their impotence in the face of something as insubstantial as warmer air." [NOTE THAT THE FILM FEATURES SEVERAL SHRINKING GLACIERS; THE SUN-TIMES PROPAGANDA ARTICLE MENTIONS ONLY KILIMANJARO, THE ONLY ONE AS TO WHICH GLOBAL WARMING IS DISPUTED AS THE CAUSE; MORE LACK OF INTEGRITY.] "But the commonly heard—AND GENERALLY CORRECT--STATEMENT THAT GLACIERS ARE DISAPPEARING BECAUSE OF WARMING glosses over the physical processes responsible for their disappearance. Indeed, warming fails spectacularly to explain the behavior of the glaciers and plateau ice on Africa's Kilimanjaro massif, just 3 degrees south of the equator, and to a lesser extent other tropical glaciers. The disappearing ice cap of the "shining mountain," which gets a starring role in the movie, is not an appropriate poster child for global climate change. Rather, extensive field work on tropical glaciers over the past 20 years by one of us (Kaser) reveals a more nuanced and interesting story. Kilimanjaro, a trio of volcanic cones that penetrate high into the cold upper troposphere, has gained and lost ice through processes that bear only indirect connections, if any, to recent trends in global climate." "If human-induced global warming has played any role in the shrinkage of Kilimanjaro's ice, it could only have joined the game quite late, after the result was already clearly decided, acting at most as an accessory, influencing the outcome indirectly. The detection and attribution studies indicating that human influence on global climate emerged some time after 1950 reach the same conclusion about East African temperature far below the peak." "THE FACT THAT THE LOSS OF ICE ON MOUNT KILMANJARO CANNOT BE USED AS PROOF OF GLOBAL WARMING DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE EARTH IS NOT WARMING. THERE IS AMPLE AND CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT THE EARTH'S AVERAGE TEMPERATURE HAS INCREASED IN THE PAST 100 YEARS, AND THE DECLINE OF MID-AND HIGH-LATITUDE GLACIERS IS A MAJ0R PIECE OF EVIDENCE." "But the special conditions on Kilimanjaro make it unlike the higher-latitude mountains, whose glaciers are shrinking because of rising atmospheric temperatures. Mass- and energy-balance considerations and the shapes of features all point in the same direction, suggesting an insignificant role for atmospheric temperature in the fluctuations of Kilimanjaro's ice." "It is possible, though, that there is an indirect connection between the accumulation of greenhouse gases and Kilimanjaro's disappearing ice: There is strong evidence of an association over the past 200 years or so between Indian Ocean surface temperatures and the atmospheric circulation and precipitation patterns that either feed or starve the ice on Kilimanjaro. These patterns have been starving the ice since the late 19th century—or perhaps it would be more accurate to say simply reversing the binge of ice growth in the third quarter of the 19th century. Any contribution of rising greenhouse gases to this circulation pattern necessarily emerged only in the last few decades; hence it is responsible for at most a fraction of the recent decline in ice and a much smaller fraction of the total decline." "The observations described above point to a combination of factors other than warming air—chiefly a drying of the surrounding air that reduced accumulation and increased ablation—as responsible for the decline of the ice on Kilimanjaro since the first observations in the 1880s." Momma said ” I am a skeptic waiting for scientific proof, not theories, and practical solutions that are not worse than the problem.” In that case be prepared to wait, the kind of thing you mean by “scientific proof” is never going to be seen. It is all “theories” and a “proof” is just a critical test of a theory, but it remains a theory. While we are at it, by “fact” science means something that is “so well supported by mature theory and evidence that to withhold conditional support would be perverse” (apologies to Gould) KW unremarkably said ” OK Bango, one of the top advisors to the IPCC admits that the computer models being used don't truly represent the actual climate conditions on this planet and you accuse me of cherry picking my data.” You cherry-picked what the man said to suit what you prefer to believe, as I have told you countless times already, that is a methodological booboo, and you are practicing bad research techniques. I am happy to give you some coursework on research techniques, just give me an email addy. I strongly suggest you make an effort to fix these shortcomings because it makes you look like a buffoon and a hick, and although it might make you feel good, it is steadily leading you astray. ” Now, please continue with the name calling and insults. From our exhanges, that seems to be where your true talent lies” You better believe it baby! CB: If you haven't already read about these autrocities, my giving you a link won't cure what ails you. KW said: "CB: If you haven't already read about these autrocities, my giving you a link won't cure what ails you." heh heh. All sorts of claims and conspiracy theories, but nothing to back it up. KW, you're a joke. CB - Is your head always in the sand or do you have to come up for air occaisionally? KW, Is it really that hard to paste a few links supporting your claims? Did you just make it all up? Bango - I didn't cherry pick what the man had to say. He said it. The question is why would he contradict himself so greatly? Or does it not bother you when a top advisor to the IPCC speaks out of both sides of his mouth? So who's cherry picking again? OK CB. For those of you who only get your news from moveon or mediamatters. Heidi Cullen of the Weather Channel says: She has appeared before the AMS requesting that anyone speaking out have their credentials revoked. And there's George Taylor, state climatologist since 1991, yet the governor and a dem state rep want him removed because he is skeptical of the global warming predictions. And surely you've heard the remarks about the "debate being over." So if they're so certain, why the need to quash dissent which flies in the face of science itself? KW said ” Bango - I didn't cherry pick what the man had to say. He said it.” You seem to be struggling with this concept KW, did you ever actually study anything or have a job that involved research? So, weighing up a reputable climate scientist who has risen to the pinnacle of his discipline versus a garden-gargoyle like yourself who is well known for misunderstanding scientific concepts, misquotes, bias, and political obedience. Given these facts, the prudent view seems to be that you are again cherry-picking quotes and facts purely on the basis of whether you think they bolster your claims and comport with your somewhat retrograde and superstitious views. Now as to your quotes about Ms.Cullen et al. There are times when disciplinary action against a scientist are warranted - and one would be if their academic or research work is of poor quality and does not conform to acceptable standards. At this point in the game, if a scientist claimed that there was no warming taking place, they would have to back that up with some pretty strong research or face being reprimanded for shoddy work. Extraordinary claims require extraordinarily strong evidential and theoretical support, and the IPCC report marks the point in time at which denial of Global Warming became an extraordinary claim. If these extraordinary claims are being made directly to the public rather than being published through the normal peer-review process, this is usually an indication of personal opinion and belief at work rather than a valid scientific position. Time will tell if any of the dissenters have valid claims or not, and this will be determined through the normal process, not through cherry-picked and hand-selected posts in blogs such as is your penchant. KW - I see you are still trolling with false statements KW. That's NOT what she said - what she did say was: At no point did she say anything about speaking out - go ahead and give us a quote from your link where you think she said such a thing. Please explain what is so terrible about thinking that an AMS approved meteorologist should be well versed in the science of global warming? Do you think think meteorologists should not be versed on the science or have you (once again) confused politics and science? Right CL - She went before the AMS for a tea party I suppose. You do live with blinkers on, don't you? Cullen: "If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval" What's she saying there CL? Recommendation for promotion? Get a clue. Get out your nose out of the books, breath in some fresh air and reconnect yourself with common sense. You and Bango have a lot of knowledge but you lack the wisdom of how to use that knowledge. KW said ” You and Bango have a lot of knowledge but you lack the wisdom of how to use that knowledge.” No doubt. However, what you are doing is just simply poor research technique, and the evocation of “common sense” is just a sop and an appeal to ignorance. It would be a far better thing if you would improve your research skills, take to heart the constructive criticism you have been given, and apply yourself to understanding and spreading understanding rather than the acts of conversational sabotage and willful ignorance that you have displayed to date. No thanks Bango. I don't care to belong to your church. You can read and preach all you want but the real facts regarding GW all lie in the not so distant future. At which time I'll either take great delight in rubbing your nose in the lack of fruition in your "man-made" dooms day scenario or at least enjoy being able to post here without reading your gw diatribe. Either one is fine with me. PS - When you resort to name calling that isn't an admirable trait, but rather the evididence of a small mind that has run out of viable arguments. Rationalize that however you wish. KW: That's all you have to back up your claim of a conspiracy to stifle dissent? Bango and CL have dealt with the particulars well, so I won't go into redundant debunking. Even if the laughable evidence you provided were proof of your claim, how does that compare to Bush appointed, non-scientist, political cronies re-writing reports by tax-dollar funded climatologists at NASA? It doesn't. Sorry CB. The debate is over. Remember? This statement has been made by the very scientists you quote and you act as if that's ok in the field of science. And you expect people to take you seriously when you post a comment? Talk about ignorance. KW said ” No thanks Bango. I don't care to belong to your church. Sorry mate, you have the wrong bloke, I don’t do “church” and I don’t do “preach”, you must be confusing me with one of your lot. Far from “rubbing my nose in it”, if it turns out that GW is wrong, it will be discovered and published through the very same bodies and journals I keep telling you to use. I quite understand that you think everybody else gets all emotionally and ideologically committed to things, but unlike you, I don’t do science that way. I know it’s hard for you to understand, but science works on whatever explanation works best, not the one that most fits what we ideologically prefer. KW: "This statement has been made by the very scientists you quote and you act as if that's ok in the field of science." I have never quoted a scientist on this topic in this forum. You're a joke. The sad thing is- you're not even a funny joke. You're the kind of joke that makes everyone feel uneasy in the silence. Well, now that this forum is officially dried up and blown away let me add that this reminds me of what I go through explaining evolution. If a better theory comes along I will dump evolution in a heart beat. But nothing is even visible on the horizon. Science is self correcting, over time, ignorance usually gets wised up real fast, during a crisis.. Of course I remind you we could have a reversal of polarity, and that would pretty much take our minds off of GW. KW 11:14 AM - Well, my car has blinkers, but it stays outside What's she saying there CL? Recommendation for promotion?" She obviously is saying that meteorologists should be versed in the science of climate change. But you wrote on 09:38 AM: As your very own quote shows, she spoke of knowing the science and NOTHING about speaking out. Your 09:38 statement was clearly a falsehood, no ifs, ands or buts. The only thing that I find worse than the education system that gave KW his understanding of science, is the thought that he may be homeschooling his kids.
. . . .
This letter has not been edited.
Global cooling in general can refer to a cooling of the Earth. More specifically, it refers to a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to press reports following a better understanding of ice age cycles and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s.
I am looking for those insightful, brainy, and innovative people I used to read about in the pages of Scientific American, and Omni, and Science Digest, and Discover .
Where are they and why do I see so many dunderheads instead?
Is Colorado just the wrong place to look?
No real argument, no real thinking, just a big upchuck of rumor and urban legend and his fears.
The 2007 IPCC Assessment
Testimony of
Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth
*
National Center for Atmospheric Research
**
before
Committee on Science and Technology
United States House of Representatives
1) There are multiple lines of evidence from many variables
2) There is a wide body of evidence and multiple analyses of each variable
3) The variables and evidence are physically consistent with warming
4) The human signal has clearly emerged from noise of natural variability, i.e., it is large.
Since the TAR, progress in understanding how the current climate is changing in space and in time has been gained through improvements and extensions of numerous datasets and data analyses, broader geographical coverage, better understanding of uncertainties, and a wider variety of measurements. Increasingly comprehensive observations are available for glaciers and snow cover since the 1960s, and for sea level and ice sheets since about the past decade. Numerous changes in climate have been observed at the scales of continents or ocean basins. These include wind patterns, precipitation, ocean salinity, sea ice, ice sheets, and aspects of extreme weather.
That pretty well fits your profile, momma y. "write long, read short". One day you'll get over the fear of learning something new.
The fact is, they can't really be sure what is causing this. And scientific research needs to be public. The IPCC reports(if you read them and I have) have little science and a lot of alarmists scenerio's that scare you into thinking we are going to die.
We need to find better ways to produce energy cleaner, and live more "green", but let's not get sidetracked with over-reactive media stories. This new craze is really no different than the global coolong in the 70's.
The media has ran away with this issue, and Newsweek will probably be apologizing for this in 30 years as well.
And as far as DDT, well, I would venture to guess more people died because we stopped using it than if we had.
As I have said, we need to clean up, but let's do it responsibly, not through the over-rated and over-blown hype of "Global Warming".
The Earth is heating up, but it has done this before, long ago when some people believe we were swinging from trees.
"So effectively, what momma y is saying is: Man induced Global Warming is thought to be real by the best and brightest among us."
As far as the advancement of science, we have gained more data, yet it has not helped to solve the underlying issue; Is this natural or is it man-made, or is it both?
The IPCC has tied together a likely scenerio, but it's still nothing more than a theory. Theories are the starting point, not the answer.
People waiting in line for an iphone...that's a whole other story.
In some places it is already too late, your house is now in the sea, has sunk into a bog that used to be permafrost, or has been swallowed by desert.
If you had a nice ice-fishing concession, you might also be out of luck since your spot may be open water or unstable ice instead of nice thick stuff you could drive out to.
KW will however continue to view this as a political issue rather than a scientific one, and I wonder if he is an example of “faith-based” rather than “reality-based” thinking. He also seems to dislike scientists being paid, even if they get only a tiny fraction of oil barons who get lavish tax handouts, and grants for drilling, and fabulously low payments on mineral leases. (Which they sometimes don’t even bother to pay).
Now, about the tree-swinging thing, sorry no.
We aren’t thought to be evolved from a brachiating ape, but from a semi-arboreal wading species. We didn’t swing, we walked and held onto things.
But can any of you explain the rabid anti-intellectualism in this place?
I then described a very real situation in science where a foregone conclusion can be proven "scientifically" by working backwards from a known conclusion.
Once again Algore is shown to be an alarmist, an opportunist and a liar.
As I said before, for some people the wait for action has already been too long, their houses have sunk in bogs that used to be permafrost or their houses are now on the wrong side of the beach.
If you prefer biblical references, look up “exegesis” and “eisegesis” – you tend to favour the latter rather heavily.
I grew up in a culture where delivering good insults was considered something of a necessity. Pity this is in English though, it lacks that certain bawdy quality of the dutch languages.
"If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval.
I didn’t accuse you of making it up and I am giving you the broadest possible benefit of the doubt as to the accuracy of the quotations you posted.
What I did say is that you selected small snippets that are obviously at odds with his other statements. One explanation for this discrepancy is that ”… a top advisor to the IPCC speaks out of both sides of his mouth” as you suggest, another is that you have removed vital context to the detriment of meaning, and that your selection method is introducing bias.
"She has appeared before the AMS requesting that anyone speaking out have their credentials revoked."
"If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming. "(emphasis mine)
There is nothing admirable about the game of spoiler that you are playing and nothing honorable in trying to throw sand in the works as you routinely do.
You can read and preach all you want but the real facts regarding GW all lie in the not so distant future.”
So while you are absolutely in the thrall of being anti-GW because it fits with your ideological commitments, I don’t have the same problem – if GW is wrong, whatever replaces it will be the position taken by the science bodies and it will be the one that I explain and describe to people.
"You do live with blinkers on, don't you?"
KW 11:22 AM -
"Cullen: "If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval"
"She has appeared before the AMS requesting that anyone speaking out have their credentials revoked." (emphasis mine)