Global Warming backdown

[sunsettommy]

Bugs wrote this?

there is no reliable evidence of global warming whatever.

NONE!!!!!

That is obviously incorrect.

It has been warming since the 1850's and even from 1979 as per the satellite data.

I wonder if you are confusing the two types of global warming?

One that is based on the unverified AGW hypothesis or the one we note based on the shaky temperature data from the late 1800's.

I do NOT accept the unverified modeling claims of long into the future warming trends as posted in the IPCC report,that are based on the also unverified AGW hypothesis.

But I DO accept the fact that it has been warming over all since the great climate shift of 1977.

[sunsettommy]

He needs two threads the same as a glutton needs two plates of food. Consumerism....I wonder how much Bugs consumes and how much he expects to consume within his life time? How can it be possible that an ice cap a mile thick that took a million years to create it self - suddenly disappear in 30 years - a million years compared to 30 does not sound like a cyclical natural phenomena - it sounds like something or somebody gave mother nature a hard push over the cliff from behind.

You will have to prove that such a disappearance occurred.

If you are talking about the West Antarctic shelf you are not being reasonable since a CALVING ice shelf is an indication of expansion.

Not only that there is a small section where this commonly reported breaking up is actually normal since there never is any long term build up in that area.Not when you have warmer water rushing right by it all the time.

[sunsettommy]

On January 28, 2010, the Information Commissioner’s Office decided that UEA and Jones had breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming. In one e-mail, Professor Jones asked a colleague to delete e-mails relating to the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He also told a colleague that he had persuaded the university authorities to ignore information requests under the act from people linked to a website run by climate sceptics. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece

Your scientists aren't trust worthy

Keep worshiping at the alter let not your fanaticism be swayed. You have more in common with Young earth creationists then you care to believe.

I have a long list of links showing the depth of Climategate and other pathetic developments.

More update is coming.

[Michael Hardner]

It's a simple question so - I'll ask again: I am not a scientist and obviously, neither are you. I have explained my position many times - I believe in continuous Climate Change, I believe that our planet has been undergoing a net increase in warming for several centuries, I am fairly convinced that the planet warms and cools in roughly 30 year cycles - superimposed upon longer cycles that I do not understand, and I am sceptical that humans have caused the majority of warming. Your position is what exactly? Is it exactly what the IPCC says? Is it that humans are creating Armegeddon? Is it that we have already reached a tipping point and we are doomed? Are you a Suzuki nut and everything horrifies you? Is it that only humans can cause warming. If you killed every human on the planet, would all warming stop? What is your position on AGW Waldo - in a sentence or two?

KiS - didn't we discuss this earlier in the thread ? The consensus is that CO2 and solar effects are major drivers of warming.

Didn't I link to a graph that correlates warming quite well with radioactivity and CO2 ?

[Alta4ever]

KiS - didn't we discuss this earlier in the thread ? The consensus is that CO2 and solar effects are major drivers of warming.

Didn't I link to a graph that correlates warming quite well with radioactivity and CO2 ?

I wonder what the consensus is on water vapour?

[jbg]

I wonder what the consensus is on water vapour?

That doesn't suit anyone's agenda -- just yet.

[Bonam]

Water vapour is also a greenhouse gas. However, it also forms clouds which increase the Earth's albedo (they reflect light back into space). I'm not sure which effect of water vapour wins out overall. Needless to say, water vapour is not a major issue since its concentration is automatically limited, the higher the concentration of water vapour, the more clouds form and the more it rains, removing the water from the atmosphere.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Bonam

[Alta4ever]

Water vapour is also a greenhouse gas. However, it also forms clouds which increase the Earth's albedo (they reflect light back into space). I'm not sure which effect of water vapour wins out overall. Needless to say, water vapour is not a major issue since its concentration is automatically limited, the higher the concentration of water vapour, the more clouds form and the more it rains, removing the water from the atmosphere.

I can tell you the large cooling towers 5 miles from me have a large impact on the immediately local climate here. We get a lot more fog and hoar frost which doesn't exits a mile or two down the road from me.

[Michael Hardner]

I wonder what the consensus is on water vapour?

One of the notable skeptic scientists thinks that it has an effect, and that it will help bring temperatures down in the coming years, if I remember correctly.

[wyly]

Water vapour is also a greenhouse gas. However, it also forms clouds which increase the Earth's albedo (they reflect light back into space). I'm not sure which effect of water vapour wins out overall. Needless to say, water vapour is not a major issue since its concentration is automatically limited, the higher the concentration of water vapour, the more clouds form and the more it rains, removing the water from the atmosphere.

water vapor cycles out of the atmosphere in about two weeks...CO2 can take hundreds to completely cycle out therefore if humans put it into the atmosphere faster than it can cycle out it obviously must accumulate...change the proportions of a mixture(gas/atmosphere) and there must be a change in the properties of that mixture...

[wyly]

One of the notable skeptic scientists thinks that it has an effect, and that it will help bring temperatures down in the coming years, if I remember correctly.

the contradiction to that is if there is greater cloud cover there will be a higher albedo which reduces sunlight reaching the earth but that cloud cover could also raise temps as the earth cooks from the inside out...the planets internal heat is what could ultimately cook us not the sun...

[Bonam]

The planet's internal heating (due to the radioactive decay of Uranium and Thorium) is tiny compared to the heat we get from the Sun.

[waldo]

It has been recovering for two years now and several published "peer reviewed" science papers explained that it was the increased influx of warm north Atlantic water and "unusual winds" that pushed more ice out the Arctic region than usual.

care to cite those papers while, at the same time, commenting on what they may have to state in terms of the condition of Arctic seasonal versus multi-year ice extent.

=> NOAA - Arctic Report Card: Update for 2009 - Sea Ice Cover - Sea ice age and thickness

The age of the ice is another key descriptor of the state of the sea ice cover, since older ice tends to be thicker and more resilient than younger ice. A simple two-stage approach classifies sea ice into first year and multiyear ice. First-year is ice that has not yet survived a summer melt season, while multi-year ice has survived at least one summer and can be several years old. Satellite derived maps of ice age for March of 2007, 2008, and 2009 are presented in

Figure S3

.

In the past decade, the extent of multiyear sea ice rapidly reduced at a rate of 1.5 x 10E+6 km2 per decade, triple the reduction rate during the three previous decades (1970-2000). Springtime multiyear ice extent was the lowest in 2008 in the QuikSCAT data record since 2000

. QuikSCAT results in March 2009 showed a multiyear ice extent of 3.0 ± 0.2 million km2. This was 0.3 million km2 larger than the multiyear ice extent on the same date in 2008, even though the total sea ice extent was similar in the spring of 2008 and 2009. While the multiyear ice extent was similar in March 2008 and 2009, its distribution was quite different. More specifically, in 2008 there was a significant amount of multiyear ice the Beaufort Sea and in 2009 there was a large amount of multiyear ice the central Arctic Ocean.

Recent estimates of Arctic Ocean sea ice thickness from satellite altimetry show a remarkable overall thinning of ~0.6 m in ice thickness between 2004 and 2008 (

Figure. S4a

). In contrast, the average thickness of the thinner first-year ice in mid-winter (~2 m), did not exhibit a downward trend. Seasonal ice is an important component covered more than two-thirds of the Arctic Ocean in 2008.

The total multiyear ice volume in the winter experienced a net loss of more than 40% in the four years since 2005 while the first year ice cover gained volume due to increased overall coverage of the Arctic Ocean. The declines in total volume and average thickness (black line in Figure S4a) are explained almost entirely by thinning and loss of multiyear sea ice due to melting and ice export. These changes have resulted in seasonal ice becoming the dominant Arctic sea ice type, both in terms of area coverage and of volume.

The recent satellite estimates were compared with the longer historical record of declassified sonar measurements from US Navy submarines (Figure S4b). Within the submarine data release area (covering ~38% of the Arctic Ocean),

the overall mean winter thickness of 3.6 m in 1980 can be compared to a 1.9 m mean during the last winter of the ICESat record—a decrease of 1.7 m in thickness. This combined submarine and satellite record shows a long-term trend of sea ice thinning over submarine and ICESat records that span three decades.

The contribution of the increasing fraction of first year ice to the long term thickness trend remains to be determined.

=> National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) - Arctic sea ice extent remains low; 2009 sees third-lowest mark

At the end of the Arctic summer, more ice cover remained this year than during the previous record-setting low years of 2007 and 2008. However, sea ice has not recovered to previous levels. September sea ice extent was the third lowest since the start of satellite records in 1979, and the past five years have seen the five lowest ice extents in the satellite record.

which itself has been supplanted with a more significant and timely update/study, as previously linked to and discussed within MLW:

=> 'Permanent' Arctic ice vanishing - Satellite images misled shocked scientists

Multi-year sea ice used to cover 90 per cent of the Arctic basin, Barber said. It now covers 19 per cent. Where it used to be up to 10 metres thick, it's now 2 metres at most.

The findings, soon to be published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters

, come as a shock to experts worldwide.

Although northern sea ice hit a record low in 2007, researchers believed it was recovering because of what they were seeing on satellite images.

But the images the experts relied on were misleading because the rotten ice looks sturdy on the surface and has a similar superficial temperature, Barber explained.

"The satellites give us only part of the story. The multi-year ice is disappearing and it's almost all gone now from the northern hemisphere."

NSIDC comments in regards Barber's study:

Dave Barber’s observations give the sort of on-the-ground confirmation of the situation that lends confidence to predictions that we’re headed towards a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean. Dave’s been up there looking at sea ice conditions for many years. He knows what he’s talking about.

The most interesting thing in the article is that the old multiyear ice is so broken up now. Even if there is a considerable amount, it is all in broken (or even rotten) floes of ice and not a largely consolidated pack like it used to be. That is a significant change in the character of the ice cover beyond the basic changes in extent and age distribution.

animation showing the loss of multi-year Arctic sea-ice extent - colours are an indication of the age of the sea ice. Lighter colours are older sea ice - white is ice 10 years old.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Isn't sunsettommy breaking the rules by posting links to another forum?

[waldo]

On January 28, 2010, the Information Commissioner’s Office decided that UEA and Jones had breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming. In one e-mail, Professor Jones asked a colleague to delete e-mails relating to the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He also told a colleague that he had persuaded the university authorities to ignore information requests under the act from people linked to a website run by climate sceptics. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece

Your scientists aren't trust worthy

Keep worshiping at the alter let not your fanaticism be swayed. You have more in common with Young earth creationists then you care to believe.

great to see you pick up Shady's habit of linking to British tabloid sources... interesting how you ignore this part of my post:

3.7.6 On 22 January 2010, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) released a statement to a journalist, which was widely misinterpreted in the media as a finding by the ICO that UEA had breached Section 77 of the FOIA by withholding raw data.

A subsequent letter to UEA from the ICO (29 January 2010) indicated that no breach of the law has been established

; that the evidence the ICO had in mind about whether there was a breach was no more than prima facie; and that the FOI request at issue did not concern raw data but private email exchanges.

or... ignore or fail to grasp the actual working relationship between UEA and ICO; specifically, in terms of the respective FOI requests, UEA didn't do anything without the direct consultation and advice of the ICO. Should there ultimately be a decision that actually suggests improper handling of FOI requests, something that would appear to involve... what... a couple of scientists - how many? Is that the weight/extent you would rely upon to cast your summary judgment concerning, as you state, "your scientists aren't trustworthy"?

[waldo]

But I DO accept the fact that it has been warming over all since the great climate shift of 1977.

and... what would you attribute that warming to - be the attribution partial, separate, complete, or ???

particularly given your earlier reference to IPCC models, what premise do you hold to concerning model simulations of your warming attribution... the one you claim to accept since the, as you say, "great climate shift of 1977"?

[Keepitsimple]

Waldo - you refuse to answer the question - why not tell us what you believe? I am not a scientist and obviously, neither are you. Your position is what exactly? You've never explained it - only criticized everyone else and cut and pasted. Is your belief exactly what the IPCC says? Is it that humans are creating Armegeddon? Is it that we have already reached a tipping point and we are doomed? Are you a Suzuki nut and everything horrifies you? Is it that only humans can cause warming. If you killed every human on the planet, would all warming stop? What is your position on AGW Waldo - in a sentence or two?

[Keepitsimple]

KiS - didn't we discuss this earlier in the thread ? The consensus is that CO2 and solar effects are major drivers of warming.

Didn't I link to a graph that correlates warming quite well with radioactivity and CO2 ?

The key word again is "concensus" - which leaves considerable room for scepticism of how much of a driver CO2 actually is. One of the major planks of the CO2 theory is "residence time" - how long CO2 stays in the atmosphere before being recycled by the oceans. Almost all studies have shown that CO2 residency time is relatively short - 10 years or less. The IPCC and their models use a residency time of 100 years. Was that choice driven by "consensus" or by convenience?

Link: http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5e507c9970c-pi

Edited March 9, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Alta4ever]

great to see you pick up Shady's habit of linking to British tabloid sources... interesting how you ignore this part of my post:

or... ignore or fail to grasp the actual working relationship between UEA and ICO; specifically, in terms of the respective FOI requests, UEA didn't do anything without the direct consultation and advice of the ICO. Should there ultimately be a decision that actually suggests improper handling of FOI requests, something that would appear to involve... what... a couple of scientists - how many? Is that the weight/extent you would rely upon to cast your summary judgment concerning, as you state, "your scientists aren't trustworthy"?

The Times is hardly a tabloid. They are a hell of a lot more trustworthy then you.

Heck if it came down to it I would trust the weekly world news over anything you post.

[Smallc]

Well, he is citing Dr. Dave Barber, and I personally know Dr. Barber. He has a cabin not far from where I'm currently living. He's part of the reason that I changed my mind.

[wyly]

The key word again is "concensus" - which leaves considerable room for scepticism of how much of a driver CO2 actually is. One of the major planks of the CO2 theory is "residence time" - how long CO2 stays in the atmosphere before being recycled by the oceans. Almost all studies have shown that CO2 residency time is relatively short - 10 years or less. The IPCC and their models use a residency time of 100 years. Was that choice driven by "consensus" or by convenience?

Link: http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5e507c9970c-pi

CO2 lifespan in atmosphere is 50 to 250 years...try link to real science sites and not denier blogs

[Shady]

The Times is hardly a tabloid

Exactly. But that's part of waldo's intellectualy dishonesty. His goal is to lump every news source from Britain under the same banner of tabloid journalism. That way he can attempt to minimize the IPCC and EAU corruption. It's an "attack the messenger, not the message" type of strategy. You can't believe anything that comes out of Britain, unless of course it's pro-AGW. Then it's acceptable to believe.

But it's all part of his hypocritical style of disucssion. He seeks to limit the information his challengers use, at the very sametime he exploits the same kind of sources. Example:

Waldo says: "You can't use information sources from Britain because they're all tabloid"

Waldo does use information from Britain, but only pro-AGW sources.

Waldo says: "Blogs aren't science, you can't reference them."

Waldo does reference blogs all of the time.

His actions speak for themselves.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Shady

[Keepitsimple]

CO2 lifespan in atmosphere is 50 to 250 years...try link to real science sites and not denier blogs

Perhaps you can site your particular source. Here's some peer-reviewed (not that it counts for much these days) information about CO2 Residence Time:

In a paper recently published in the international peer-reviewed journal Energy & Fuels, Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh (2009), Professor of Energy Conversion at The Ohio State University, addresses the residence time (RT) of anthropogenic CO2 in the air. He finds that the RT for bulk atmospheric CO2, the molecule 12CO2, is ~5 years, in good agreement with other cited sources (Segalstad, 1998), while the RT for the trace molecule 14CO2 is ~16 years. Both of these residence times are much shorter than what is claimed by the IPCC.

Link: http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php

Here's the anstract from the actual study:

Potential Dependence of Global Warming on the Residence Time (RT) in the Atmosphere of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide

Robert H. Essenhigh

Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210

Energy Fuels, 2009, 23 (5), pp 27732784

DOI: 10.1021/ef800581r

Publication Date (Web): April 1, 2009

Copyright © 2009 American Chemical Society

Abstract:

The driver for this study is the wide-ranging published values of the CO2 atmospheric residence time (RT), τ, with the values differing by more than an order of magnitude, where the significance of the difference relates to decisions on whether (1) to attempt control of combustion-sourced (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions, if τ > 100 years, or (2) not to attempt control, if τ 10 years. This given difference is particularly evident in the IPCC First 1990 Climate Change Report where, in the opening policymakers summary of the report, the RT is stated to be in the range of 50−200 years, and (largely) on the basis of that, it was also concluded in the report and from subsequent related studies that the current rising level of CO2 was due to combustion of fossil fuels, thus carrying the, now widely accepted, rider that CO2 emissions from combustion should therefore be curbed. However, the actual data in the text of the IPCC report separately states a value of 4 years. The differential of these two times is then clearly identified in the relevant supporting documents of the report as being, separately (1) a long-term (100 years) adjustment or response time to accommodate imbalance increases in CO2 emissions from all sources and (2) the actual RT in the atmosphere of 4 years. As a check on that differentiation and its alternative outcome, the definition and determination of RT thus defined the need for and focus of this study. In this study, using the combustion/chemical-engineering perfectly stirred reactor (PSR) mixing structure or 0D box for the model basis, as an alternative to the more commonly used global circulation models (GCMs), to define and determine the RT in the atmosphere and then using data from the IPCC and other sources for model validation and numerical determination, the data (1) support the validity of the PSR model application in this context and, (2) from the analysis, provide (quasi-equilibrium) RTs for CO2 of 5 years carrying C12 and 16 years carrying C14, with both values essentially in agreement with the IPCC short-term (4 year) value and, separately, in agreement with most other data sources, notably, a 1998 listing by Segalstad of 36 other published values, also in the range of 5−15 years. Additionally, the analytical results also then support the IPCC analysis and data on the longer adjustment time (100 years) governing the long-term rising quasi-equilibrium concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. For principal verification of the adopted PSR model, the data source used was the outcome of the injection of excess 14CO2 into the atmosphere during the A-bomb tests in the 1950s/1960s, which generated an initial increase of approximately 1000% above the normal value and which then declined substantially exponentially with time, with τ = 16 years, in accordance with the (unsteady-state) prediction from and jointly providing validation for the PSR analysis. With the short (5−15 year) RT results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion. The economic and political significance of that conclusion will be self-evident.

Link: http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/08/atmospheric-residence-time-of-man-made-co2/

Edited March 9, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

great to see you pick up Shady's habit of linking to British tabloid sources... interesting how you ignore this part of my post:

3.7.6 On 22 January 2010, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) released a statement to a journalist, which was widely misinterpreted in the media as a finding by the ICO that UEA had breached Section 77 of the FOIA by withholding raw data.

A subsequent letter to UEA from the ICO (29 January 2010) indicated that no breach of the law has been established

; that the evidence the ICO had in mind about whether there was a breach was no more than prima facie; and that the FOI request at issue did not concern raw data but private email exchanges.

or... ignore or fail to grasp the actual working relationship between UEA and ICO; specifically, in terms of the respective FOI requests, UEA didn't do anything without the direct consultation and advice of the ICO. Should there ultimately be a decision that actually suggests improper handling of FOI requests, something that would appear to involve... what... a couple of scientists - how many? Is that the weight/extent you would rely upon to cast your summary judgment concerning, as you state, "your scientists aren't trustworthy"?

The Times is hardly a tabloid. They are a hell of a lot more trustworthy then you.

Heck if it came down to it I would trust the weekly world news over anything you post.

regardless of your need to personalize an attack, I will highlight you've ignored the part of my post that clearly shows you were either incorrect in your FOI claim... or you purposely lied - you can choose which one you're more comfortable with. How trustworthy should we proclaim you as?

as for the Times, have a read through that article within the first link I've just provided... the previous MLW post's article titled, "British Newspapers Make Things Up" - it has a very pointed reference to the Times. Clearly the Times is no longer a broadsheet format newspaper - it now prints in tabloid size... in any case, you picked the perfect choice given the Times Science Editor is none other than the infamous Jonathan Leake, Shady's favourite dishonest go-to tabloid news fabricating 'journalist'... we've already highlighted the fake, fabricated and dishonest "journalism" attributed to the Times in previous MLW posts - here... and here. The latter post so pointedly shows the level that Shady's "intellectual dishonesty" has sunk to... it's certainly worth repeating:

the backlash against the British tabloids is building; interested parties are collectively gathering the evidence against the British tabloid "journalists"... be they

David Rose

,

Piers Akerman

... or Shady's favourite - the

Times' Science Editor - Jonathan Leake

one of those bloggers, Tim Lambert (amongst others), has recently started to catalogue the fabrications of Jonathan Leake. If you're not familiar with Tim Lambert, he's a legitimate Australian scientist, recently of note involved in demolishing the denier poster-boy Monckton during a much touted/publicized debate in Australia.

The dishonesty, the lies, the fabrication of Jonathan Leake... Shady's most favoured go-to British tabloid journalist:

- Shady's most recent display of his "intellectual dishonesty"... concerning Jonathan Leake's fabrication concerning tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes):

Leakegate + The Australian's War on Science 46

- the original

Leakegate

(re: Amazon forest)

-

Leakegate scandal grows

-

Leakegate scandal gets bigger

-

Leakegate: the case for fraud

-

Journalismgate

-

Leakegate: Jonathan Leake caught misrepresenting another scientist

-

Leakegate: Leake verballed Richard Dawkins

-

Leakegate: On stovepiping and plagiarism

-

Leakegate: Yes, Leake was responsible for that bogus story about the carbon footprint of Google

-

Leakegate: How Jonathan Leake concocted 'Africagate'

-

Leakegate: "not based on any research"

as I said, Altaboy... good on ya for picking up Shady's intellectually dishonest practice!

[waldo]

Exactly. But that's part of waldo's intellectualy dishonesty.

clearly... the "intellectual dishonesty" titled thread is yours. It's heartwarming to see you've at least become sensitized and impacted by that thread - we've made some progress... after all.

as for blogs Shady, I thought i was quite clear... like I said, Shady, "there's certainly no problem with bringing forward legitimate science based sources from blogs - you should try it sometime!"

poor Shady, apparently you don't make the distinction between blogs run by, and featuring, actual scientists... those actively discussing actual science by those engaged in the actual science of climate change... from your favoured blogs that are run by tv weathermen, retired farts with no scientific background, political hacks or fake/wannabe "blog scientists". Although it's rare you actually link beyond your favoured go-to British tabloid sources, invariably... when you do offer up a direct blog link... it's one typically linking to a British tabloid fabrication anyway.

Shady, there's certainly no problem with bringing forward legitimate science based sources from blogs - you should try it sometime!