A warmer Arctic? Blame Mother Nature

[JerrySeinfeld]

Here are some tidbits from today's column by Lorne Gunter:

In the most recent issue of Nature -- a prestigious scientific journal that in the past has shown a decided hostility to studies that contradict the climate change hysteria -- Rune Graversen and others from the meteorology department at Stockholm University postulate that the recent, allegedly dangerous Arctic thaw is far from unique in history. Rather than being the result of man-made climate change, they argue, the warming northern seas and tundra mainly result from atmospheric energy transfers from southern latitudes to northern.

In other words, tropical storms and atmospheric currents travelling from the tropics to the Arctic have shifted a large amount of heat from equatorial regions to the North.

Then there was the news in early December that Icelandic and Norwegian scientists had determined an ancient polar bear jawbone they had discovered in 2004 was 110,000 to 130,000 years old.

What has that got to do with global warming? Only that it proves Ursus maritimus was a separate species before the Eeemian interglacial period. The Eeemian was a much warmer period than our own Holocene period, yet the big white predators managed to survive it without endangered species protection or the hand-wringing of environmentalists.

and finally the best quote:

And what about hurricanes? We have just finished the second straight year of below-average 'cane activity. That doesn't disprove global warming either. But why is it we are bombarded by claims of a warming-hurricane link only in bad years, yet hear nothing from environmentalists in good years?

My point is that coverage of global warming and climate change have become horribly one-sided. Every report about a disappearing tree tick or nasty bout of rainfall that seems to support the received wisdom is blared loud and wide, while stories that might undermine it are seldom given more than brief mention.

It the public is to make up its mind about climate change, it needs better balance.

Link to the article.

Edited January 7, 2008 by JerrySeinfeld

[Brain Candy]

This debate has been the biggest waste of time.

We do know that climate change is natural, and we do not know how much human activity contributes to it.

What we should be focusing on is how we know alot of emissions and an increasing rate of resource consumption will hurt our own sustainability and general health, not some apocalyptic scenario which effects may or may not be seen hundreds of years from now.

[Rue]

This debate has been the biggest waste of time.

We do know that climate change is natural, and we do not know how much human activity contributes to it.

What we should be focusing on is how we know alot of emissions and an increasing rate of resource consumption will hurt our own sustainability and general health, not some apocalyptic scenario which effects may or may not be seen hundreds of years from now.

Who is we? Speak for yourself. The vast majority of the world's scientific community believes human activity is contributing to what is happening. Your need to get into an arguement as to how much human activity contributes to it, reminds me of someone who asks how many cigarettes will he need to smoke to get lung cancer.

You want to stick your head in the sand and deny, then speak for thine self and not "we". Thanks.

[Rue]

Here are some tidbits from today's column by Lorne Gunter:

and finally the best quote:

Link to the article.

Yes I do not doubt if you read Lorne Gunter's articles he will provide opinion columns as to the opinions you believe in but what does this prove other then that he has political views (conservative, libertarian) similiar to yours? You really think some columnist from the Edmonton Journal is an authority on global warming simply because he writes columns you agree with?

Everyone has their messiah.

Mine is Halle Berry.

[Brain Candy]

Who is we? Speak for yourself. The vast majority of the world's scientific community believes human activity is contributing to what is happening.

But it is meeting resistance from people because Al Gore and the like are using fear tactics that people see through, and then offering some fancy "green" products for us to buy then everything will be ok. Their is to much focus on this over the countless ways overconsumption and such is hurting us right now.

If your going to simplify my position then assume my head is in the sand, speak for yourself.

[kengs333]

Here are some tidbits from today's column by Lorne Gunter:

and finally the best quote:

Link to the article.

Jerry,

Just about everyone who knows anything about climate change with read the following sentence:

"a prestigious scientific journal that in the past has shown a decided hostility to studies that contradict the climate change hysteria"

and likely go no further. That kind of nonsense is old hat and it just indicates that the writer is ignorant and driven by a neocon agenda. The only purpose that people like that serve is to delude right-wing business types that the reality of humanity's impact on the environment is all a myth so they can ruthlessly go about polluting and expoliting the earth without any guilt.

I'm willing to listen to anyone's informed opinion's about climate change, but right-wing hack journalists really have no place in the debate.

[kengs333]

This debate has been the biggest waste of time.

We do know that climate change is natural, and we do not know how much human activity contributes to it.

What we should be focusing on is how we know alot of emissions and an increasing rate of resource consumption will hurt our own sustainability and general health, not some apocalyptic scenario which effects may or may not be seen hundreds of years from now.

The problem with your assertion is: in order for there to be a "natural" process, there has to be something causing it to occur. When sceintists look at the evidence we have for "natural" cycles of climate change, all they can really determine is that they happened and roughly when it was occuring. So people who don't know what they're talking about will simply look at graphs and figure just because the line goes up and down a lot that there are "natural" cycles and the will ever so deftly assume that this is just another case of the line going back up. Well, those increases in temperature in fact are likely the cause of solar activity, increased volcanic activity, or some other unknown phenomenon. But do we have that now? No. But what we do have is human activity releasing high amounts of carbon into the atmosphere--this has only been happening on a large scale for the last 60-70 year, and just by coincidence, average global temperatures have risen markedly during this same period. What an interesting coincidence...

[White Doors]

The problem with your assertion is: in order for there to be a "natural" process, there has to be something causing it to occur. When sceintists look at the evidence we have for "natural" cycles of climate change, all they can really determine is that they happened and roughly when it was occuring. So people who don't know what they're talking about will simply look at graphs and figure just because the line goes up and down a lot that there are "natural" cycles and the will ever so deftly assume that this is just another case of the line going back up. Well, those increases in temperature in fact are likely the cause of solar activity, increased volcanic activity, or some other unknown phenomenon. But do we have that now? No. But what we do have is human activity releasing high amounts of carbon into the atmosphere--this has only been happening on a large scale for the last 60-70 year, and just by coincidence, average global temperatures have risen markedly during this same period. What an interesting coincidence...

Wrong. Solar activity has been on a high for several years now. How else would you explain the warming occuring on mars?

Once again, you make pronouncements with no basis in facts.

[White Doors]

Jerry,

Just about everyone who knows anything about climate change with read the following sentence:

"a prestigious scientific journal that in the past has shown a decided hostility to studies that contradict the climate change hysteria"

and likely go no further. That kind of nonsense is old hat and it just indicates that the writer is ignorant and driven by a neocon agenda. The only purpose that people like that serve is to delude right-wing business types that the reality of humanity's impact on the environment is all a myth so they can ruthlessly go about polluting and expoliting the earth without any guilt.

I'm willing to listen to anyone's informed opinion's about climate change, but right-wing hack journalists really have no place in the debate.

He cites 3 different peer reviewed scientific studies in the article.

Refute on facts if you can.

[Oleg Bach]

Wrong. Solar activity has been on a high for several years now. How else would you explain the warming occuring on mars?

Once again, you make pronouncements with no basis in facts.

You know White Doors - before I read anything about you I knew from your disresectful manner towards me- that - before I even read a thing and saw your name attatched to the climate change debate - I thought to myself, "I bet the White Doors fellow is a climate change denier" Well I was right - all I can say about your way of thinking, is that it is based in the mind set - IF MY BANK ACCOUNT DROPS BUT FIFTY CENTS BECAUSE OF HAVING TO REPAIR A DAMAGED EARTH - THEN HELLL WITH IT...I DON'T CARE IF THE WORLD ROTS OR BURNS UP - NO TREE HUNGER IS GOING TO MAKE ME POOR - I WOULD RATHER RULE IN HELL THAN SERVE IN HEAVEN...that's about right - am I correct about you WHITE DOOR?

[kengs333]

Wrong. Solar activity has been on a high for several years now. How else would you explain the warming occuring on mars?

Once again, you make pronouncements with no basis in facts.

Excuse me? Please read the section on "Solar Variability & Global Warming".

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

[kengs333]

He cites 3 different peer reviewed scientific studies in the article.

Refute on facts if you can.

As opposed to how many thousands of peer-reviewed studies that suggest climate change is man-made? Sorry, but the fact that you have to make hostile remarks like "refute on facts if you can" clearly shows you know your position is tenuous. Feel free to cite your "facts" if they're so true...

[Riverwind]

As opposed to how many thousands of peer-reviewed studies that suggest climate change is man-made? Sorry, but the fact that you have to make hostile remarks like "refute on facts if you can" clearly shows you know your position is tenuous. Feel free to cite your "facts" if they're so true...

There are not thousands of peer reviewed studies that *show* warming is man made. There are 1000s of papers that *assume* that warming is man made. There is a huge difference.

The entire arguement made by the IPCC for catastrophic CO2 induced warming is built on computer models that have many known limitations and uncertainty. More importantly, these models are built on a number of assumptions that may or may not be true. For example, no one can exclude the possibility that some poorly understood connection between the sun and warming exists yet the models assume that there is no such connection. Yet recent research shows that an indirect relationship between cloud cover and cosmic rays could affect climate. The models will have to be completely re-done if this research pans out.

I also think it is a mistake to put too much weight on the 'consensus' amoung climate scientists because they are mostly a group of academics who rely on standards of proof that would be unacceptable in displines like engineering or medicine. This means that they claim 95% certainity based on evidence that would not even rate a 50% likely claim by an engineer who reviews the same evidence. Engineers have much higher standards because they regularly use science in ways that has a serious impact on people's lives. They are also personally liable if they make a mistake. If climate scientists want to convince the world to make huge social investments based on their CO2 science then they better make sure they live up to the same standards of proof imposed on engineers. Unfortunately, most climate scientists anly whinge about how adhereng to engineering standards is not the 'way science is done'.

The AGW alarmists could be right which means that some prudent measures are worthwhile. However, it is wrong to claim that AGW is a proven fact. It is nothing but a hypothesis.

Edited January 10, 2008 by Riverwind

[buffycat]

For those here who are staunch supporters of the current AGW myth, you may want to review this document - it lays it out in very simple terms - written by Tim Patterson:

The Geologic Record and Climate Change

CO2 is NOT a predominant greenhouse gas - never was and never will be.

Does this mean we can disregard the damage that we humans are actually doing? Of course not!!

All that AGW seems to do is take the onus off FAR more important pollutants within our environment - things we can REALLY change.

So sad so many have fallen victim to this LIE.

[kengs333]

There are not thousands of peer reviewed studies that *show* warming is man made. There are 1000s of papers that *assume* that warming is man made. There is a huge difference.

No, I did not say "show," "assume," or "prove"--I said suggest. The general scientific consensus is that mankind is contributing to climate change. There will always be people with a different theory than that of the general consensus, but what does that prove? In the vast majority of the time, when there is such a widespread general consensus among scientists as there is with climate change, a small minority on the fringe like those claiming that "global warming" is a fraud suggests that those on the fringe are there for a good reason: they're cranks.

Yet recent research shows that an indirect relationship between cloud cover and cosmic rays could affect climate. The models will have to be completely re-done if this research pans out.

There's a theory called "global dimming" which suggests that the earth's average temperature is cooled because of all of the air traffic that occurs on a daily basis. Were all commercial air travel grounded for a long period of time--as happened for three days after 9/11--it's very likely that the effects of climate change would become much more noticeable.

I also think it is a mistake to put too much weight on the 'consensus' amoung climate scientists because they are mostly a group of academics who rely on standards of proof that would be unacceptable in displines like engineering or medicine. This means that they claim 95% certainity based on evidence that would not even rate a 50% likely claim by an engineer who reviews the same evidence. Engineers have much higher standards because they regularly use science in ways that has a serious impact on people's lives.

Nonsense.

[Wilber]

There's a theory called "global dimming" which suggests that the earth's average temperature is cooled because of all of the air traffic that occurs on a daily basis. Were all commercial air travel grounded for a long period of time--as happened for three days after 9/11--it's very likely that the effects of climate change would become much more noticeable.

I'd say that is a pretty far out theory. Aircraft contrails contibute very little to cloud cover.

[Riverwind]

The general scientific consensus is that mankind is contributing to climate change.

This is a classic bait and switch. You make a motherhood statement which virtually everyone agrees with and use it to imply that the catastrophic CO2 induced warming hypothesis should be given the same consideration. Humans affect climate and we should be concerned. However, the single minded focus on CO2 as the major cause of climate change is a huge mistake and will divert resources from areas where the real problems exist.

In the vast majority of the time, when there is such a widespread general consensus among scientists as there is with climate change, a small minority on the fringe like those claiming that "global warming" is a fraud suggests that those on the fringe are there for a good reason: they're cranks.

Virtually every breakthrough in scientific knowledge came from people who went against the 'consensus' view. Scientists are supposed to question the consensus. People who stop looking for answers because it is the 'consensus' are not scientists -> they are priests. In any case, I suggest you read the science done by people like Spenser, Christy and Svensmark. You will find that they are doing good science and are most definitely not cranks. Their science is compelling and casts considerable doubt on the IPCC claims.

all commercial air travel grounded for a long period of time--as happened for three days after 9/11--it's very likely that the effects of climate change would become much more noticeable.

You need to get your facts straight. When the jets stopped after 9/11 scientists observed a 3 degC increase in the difference between the maximum and the minimum daily temperatures. They did *not* observe any generalized warming.

Nonsense.

Really? Why don't you try learning about the topic before making pronouncements. The 'evidence' for CO2 induced global warming comes entirely from computer models. Models which were built using the assumption that CO2 is the major cause of warming. These models have done a poor job of predicting trends so far and their is no reason to believe they will get any better in the future because the climate system is incredibly complex and we don't understand most of the things that affect climate.

Such issues are not a concern to theoretical climate scientists who don't concern themselves with the real world if they have a theory that they like. As a result, you find climate scientists claiming that they are 95% certain that their hypothesis is correct. On the other hand, many engineers, meteorologists and other practical scientists come to the opposite conclusion when they look and the uncertainties, the poor predictions and the dubious assumptions built into the models. This difference in opinion does not mean the climate scientists are wrong - it just means that we should take their pronouncements with a grain of salt. Especially, if their claims are being used to justify major public investments.

Edited January 11, 2008 by Riverwind

[kengs333]

I'd say that is a pretty far out theory. Aircraft contrails contibute very little to cloud cover.

No, actually it was a theory until 9/11 seemed to confirm that this was possible.

[kengs333]

This is a classic bait and switch. You make a motherhood statement which virtually everyone agrees with and use it to imply that the catastrophic CO2 induced warming hypothesis should be given the same consideration. Humans affect climate and we should be concerned. However, the single minded focus on CO2 as the major cause of climate change is a huge mistake and will divert resources from areas where the real problems exist.

Who's talking "catastrophic"? Not to mention "single minded". These are misperceptions on your part. So where do the "real problems exist" then?

Virtually every breakthrough in scientific knowledge came from people who went against the 'consensus' view. Scientists are supposed to question the consensus. People who stop looking for answers because it is the 'consensus' are not scientists -> they are priests. In any case, I suggest you read the science done by people like Spenser, Christy and Svensmark. You will find that they are doing good science and are most definitely not cranks. Their science is compelling and casts considerable doubt on the IPCC claims.

The ultimate purpose of science is not to engage in a never-ending struggle against "the consensus" rather to determine the truth as best as possible, and that means that eventually a consensus will be reached. In a case like this, we're getting to the point where the evidence is indisputable, and so those people who still persist in suggesting that "the consensus" is wrong increasingly become marginalized, as they should be.

You need to get your facts straight. When the jets stopped after 9/11 scientists observed a 3 degC increase in the difference between the maximum and the minimum daily temperatures. They did *not* observe any generalized warming.

Oh, did I say "observed... generalized warming" or did I say "suggests that the earth's average temperature is cooled"??? I believe that it was the latter. Please learn how to comprehend what you read.

Really? Why don't you try learning about the topic before making pronouncements.

Maybe you should "try learning" how not to ape other people. This who business about "pronouncements" is a joke. I try to couch my arguments in non-absolute terms--ie., using words like "possible," "suggests," etc.--yet you somehow interpret this as my being "a priest". Again, what I said about the issue of reading comprehension.

The 'evidence' for CO2 induced global warming comes entirely from computer models. Models which were built using the assumption that CO2 is the major cause of warming. These models have done a poor job of predicting trends so far and their is no reason to believe they will get any better in the future because the climate system is incredibly complex and we don't understand most of the things that affect climate.

No, the influence of CO2 on the atmosphere is quite well understood, and therefore the correlation between increasing average temperatures and increased CO2 in the atmosphere is not really a matter of debate. There's no disputing that the "climate system is incredibly complex" and developing climate models is never a sure thing. Whenever a study is done, though, it's not like the scientists run the model once and base their findings on that alone; the whole process is a little more thorough and involved as you seem to think. And in the end, I don't think that any scientist would argue that their findings on this issue are indisputable--well, except for those "scientists" bent on debunking the "global warming 'myth'".

[Riverwind]

In a case like this, we're getting to the point where the evidence is indisputable

What are you calling indisputable? The claim that rising CO2 levels are dangerous? That claim is nothing more than an assumption based on computer models. There is no conclusive evidence supporting that claim. It is most definitely disputable.

No, the influence of CO2 on the atmosphere is quite well understood, and therefore the correlation between increasing average temperatures and increased CO2 in the atmosphere is not really a matter of debate.

The well understood physics of CO2 tells us that doubling the CO2 levels over the next 100 years will cause no more than 1 degC increase in temperature. Such a small rise is of no concern. However, the AGW alarmists claim that the actual temperature rise will be 1.5 to 4.5 degC because of water vapour feedback mechanisms. Water vapour and clouds are one of the things that the models handle extremely poorly yet the AGW activists claim that their models are 95% likely to be right. It is a rediculous assertion from the perspective of anyone who does not have a vested interesting in pushing the AGW alarmist view.

Whenever a study is done, though, it's not like the scientists run the model once and base their findings on that alone; the whole process is a little more thorough and involved as you seem to think.

Not really. It comes down to proof by model. There are numerous papers that attempt to quantify the effect of CO2 without using a computer model however these papers rely a lot of assumptions and guess work. The two big assumptions are

1) random variations in climate cannot cause trends over 20-30 years;

2) that CO2 is the only mechanism that can explain the variations;

There is no reason to believe with 95% certainty that either of those assumptions is correct.

And in the end, I don't think that any scientist would argue that their findings on this issue are indisputable

Yet you just said the science is "indisputable" and people who claim otherwise are cranks. You have demonstrated the problem. Some scientists may be quite upfront when it comes to reporting the uncertainties in the science, however, there is an an army adherents to the AGW cause that ignore these uncertainities and run around making claims that the "we're getting to the point where the evidence is indisputable".

[kengs333]

1 degC increase in temperature. Such a small rise is of no concern.

If you really believe that then you don't know what you're talking about. I see no point in wasting my time on this any further.

Yet you just said the science is "indisputable" and people who claim otherwise are cranks.

Since when does "getting to" translate into "is"?

[Riverwind]

If you really believe that then you don't know what you're talking about. I see no point in wasting my time on this any further.

You really believe that a 1 degC rise in temperatures is a concern? And you actually think you are informed on the topic? The climate has gone through swings much greater than 1 degC in the past in the last 10000 years. The temperature has risen 0.8 degC in the last 150 years yet there is no sign of a temperature induced disaster. Your claim is not supported by any credible science.

More importantly, there is *a lot* of scientific evidence that demonstrates that slightly warmer temps + higher CO2 increases plant productivity and would actually be good for humans on the whole.

I suggest you read though some of the science presented on this site. It has a lot of information that supports the claim that modest warming is not unusual, not particularily dangerous and probably beneficial on the whole.

Edited January 11, 2008 by Riverwind

[Oleg Bach]

You really believe that a 1 degC rise in temperatures is a concern? And you actually think you are informed on the topic? The climate has gone through swings much greater than 1 degC in the past in the last 10000 years. The temperature has risen 0.8 degC in the last 150 years yet there is no sign of a temperature induced disaster. Your claim is not supported by any credible science.

More importantly, there is *a lot* of scientific evidence that demonstrates that slightly warmer temps + higher CO2 increases plant productivity and would actually be good for humans on the whole.

I suggest you read though some of the science presented on this site. It has a lot of information that supports the claim that modest warming is not unusual, not particularily dangerous and probably beneficial on the whole.

Blaming mother nature for the melting ice caps is like blaming the rape victim for the attack. This is a crisis - I could see the arctic melting in a period of a couple of hundred years - and calling it natural - but to see it GONE is a five year period and saying it is natural is like - smacking the rape victim across the face for the sin of being a woman.....no - this is very serious. This is so drastic that it could be compared to North America being suddenly submerged never to be seen again - YOU don't seem to understand how horrific this is...this is just the begining of climatic collapse - and for you rich buggers out their that want to deny your activity is repsonsible - Well ----as the ice melts so will your wealth.. ha ha ha ...and there is nothing you can do about it.

[Riverwind]

Blaming mother nature for the melting ice caps

What melting ice caps? There is as much ice today as there was in 1979.

BTW - the North West Passage was open in the 1940s too but later froze up again.

Edited January 11, 2008 by Riverwind

[Oleg Bach]

What melting ice caps? There is as much ice today as there was in 1979.

BTW - the North West Passage was open in the 1940s too but later froze up again.

So you are going to deny that via satallite, we see the massive difference? 1979 - wow - that was eons ago - even if what you say is true...29 years is still not enough to call it natural climactic evolution - and also - even if there was no such thing as global warming or cooling - that is not the issue - the environ has become like a barn yard - where the manure pile is so damn high you can't see the barn let alone maintain the herd...there are limits to every expanding developement and every expanding wealth! When will you folks that hold billions in assets finally say - "that's enough!" - This type of on going power sucking is a form of auto-cannibalism - YOU are not only eating the people - you are eating the habitat also - and blaming it on the poor when it is YOU - that suffer from a mental condition called greed - time to take charge of your passions and calm down - habitual accumulation of weath for no real purpose is a form of mental illness.