Scientists Challenge UN and Gore

[Michael Hardner]

Just youre a sucker for punishment.

Do you try to reason with trees, and street signs too?

I admit to having rolled through a stop sign now and again...

[waldo]

I'm a sceptic.....and like almost all sceptics, I believe that the world is warming

Funny how the Alarmists say that there is no proof that the MWP was global in nature.....that it may be regional because of the lack of proof in the tropics. Yet right now, the Arctic is the regional anomoly that skews the homogenized global average temperature.....but we are asked to accept that we are experiencing a Global Warming.

huh! Asked to accept??? Oh... right!

you're a

concern troll

. Your posting history is a testament to your denial.

(note: Simple also appears not to accept the MWP regional anomalies attributed to MWP regional warming; i.e., increased luminosity, decreased volcanic activity & changing North Atlantic ocean circulation... is there a (Simple) pattern here? (/snarc))

[waldo]

it's offical now...2010 is the warmest year in Canada since records have been kept, by 3c...where's the warm up ...there it is!

just released, NOAA's December 2010 temperature anomalies and the NOAA 'State of the Climate Global Analysis Annual 2010' report:

- globally, per NOAA's records, 2010 officially tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record, at 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F).

- globally, per NOAA's records, the 2001-to-2010 decade officially the warmest decade on record.

.....and for the Contiguous US - since 1980:

2010 - 16th coldest

2009 - 10th coldest

2008 - 8th coldest

Link: http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/cag3/hr-display3.pl

Canada is blessed with huge swaths of Arctic territory. As is currently measured, the Arctic is a gigantic regional anomoly which has warmed much more than any other spot on the globe. Funny how the Alarmists say that there is no proof that the MWP was global in nature.....that it may be regional because of the lack of proof in the tropics. Yet right now, the Arctic is the regional anomoly that skews the homogenized global average temperature.....but we are asked to accept that we are experiencing a Global Warming.

clearly, given your recent flurry of posts related to the U.S. Contiguous land surface temperatures, one of your favoured TV weatherman blogs has stirred your pot! Oh... hey now!

- but if Global Warming is not happening in the US, who cares!

yabut... what about those trendy thingees? Given your aforementioned leanings to the 1980-2010 period:

- following your NOAA NCDC lead, the 1980-2010 trend for U.S. Contiguous land surface temperatures -

here

:

- the 1980-2010 trend for global land & sea surface temperatures -

here

:

[Saipan]

So where exactly is the global warm up?

[wyly]

huh! Asked to accept??? Oh... right!

(note: Simple also appears not to accept the MWP regional anomalies attributed to MWP regional warming; i.e., increased luminosity, decreased volcanic activity & changing North Atlantic ocean circulation... is there a (Simple) pattern here? (/snarc))

ahhh I had seen the term "sockpuppet" before but I'd never looked into what it meant, now I know ...

I've noticed more and more deniers trying to sneak over to the "I knew it was AGW all along" position...

[wyly]

So where exactly is the global warm up?

ask your grapes...or a viking...or a pilgrim...or a viking pilgrim who grows grapes...

[Michael Hardner]

So where exactly is the global warm up?

You are a troll of the worst kind... how many times have you asked that ?

Why don't you leave if you can't argue properly ?

[Saipan]

You are a troll of the worst kind... how many times have you asked that ?

Uncomfortable question upsets you?

Take couple of Aspirins and lay down for a while.

[Michael Hardner]

Uncomfortable question upsets you?

Take couple of Aspirins and lay down for a while.

I like uncomfortable questions. It's charming when a little kid asks "why is the sky blue ?". The fiftieth time they ask, it's time to go to bed.

[WIP]

So where exactly is the global warm up?

Try looking north:

Dr. Overland discussed the remarkable winter of 2009 – 2010, which brought record snowstorms to Europe and the U.S. East Coast, along with the coldest temperatures in 25 years, but also brought the warmest winter on record to Canada and much of the Arctic. He demonstrated that the Arctic is normally dominated by low pressure in winter, and a “Polar Vortex” of counter-clockwise circulating winds develops surrounding the North Pole. However, during the winter of 2009-2010, high pressure replaced low pressure over the Arctic, and the Polar Vortex weakened and even reversed at times, with a clockwise flow of air replacing the usual counter-clockwise flow of air around the pole. This unusual flow pattern allowed cold air to spill southwards and be replaced by warm air moving poleward.

This pattern is kind of like leaving the refrigerator door ajar--the refrigerator warms up, but all of the cold air spills out into the house.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1710&tstamp=

Higher pressure surfaces above the North Pole, due to the warmer temperatures associated with greatly reduced sea ice, are thought to impact large scale wind patterns over the Northern Hemisphere. Climate models show these connections with cold air moving south, producing low pressure areas and unusually cold winters in the eastern U.S. and eastern Asia, and cooler than usual weather in late winter from Europe to the Far East1,2,3,4,5 (Figure 1, below). This would be only one factor among many influencing U.S. and Eurasian weather. How do we think we know this?

Severe winters in eastern US and E. Asia are related by teleconnections to changes in atmospheric pressure and winds following loss of Arctic sea ice

How does Arctic ice loss impact the climate system?

As the earth warms, the warming is amplified in the Arctic. More sea ice melts in the summertime, and with more open water, heat from the sun is absorbed in the ocean. With the warmer Arctic, winter freezeup is delayed, resulting in thinner wintertime ice.

The heat absorbed into the ocean in summertime is released to the atmosphere in the fall, warming the atmosphere and changing the atmospheric pressure surfaces over the pole.

This dome of warm air and elevated atmospheric pressure surfaces over the pole changes the Arctic atmospheric wind patterns, allowing outbreaks of cold Arctic air to the south.

Europe and East Asia have more severe winter storms

Observational evidence shows that the recent significant cold anomalies over the Far East in early winter and cold temperature anomalies from Europe to Far East in late winter are associated with the decrease of the Arctic sea-ice cover in the preceding summer-to-autumn seasons.

Computer simulation of unusually high pressure area over regions without sea ice and unusually low pressure areas over Eastern Asia in December. United States has more severe winter storms

Preliminary results from numerical computer simulations indicate that the significant cold anomalies over the eastern US in winter are associated with the decrease of the Arctic sea-ice cover in the preceding summer-to-autumn seasons

Although there is considerable year to year variability, as summer Arctic open water area increases over the next decades, an increasing influence of loss of summer sea ice on northern hemisphere wind patters can be anticipated, with resultant impacts on northern hemisphere weather.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/future/impacts.html

[Pliny]

- following your NOAA NCDC lead, the 1980-2010 trend for U.S. Contiguous land surface temperatures -

here

:

I didn't expect to see those drops at the end since our activities haven't decreased and more and more carbon is being released all the time, which stays in the carbon cycle for decades. Wouldn't there be a cumulative exponential effect? Especially in light of the fact, we have only a short time frame to correct this or we are all going to die!

- the 1980-2010 trend for global land & sea surface temperatures -

here

:

From that graph it looks like a warming trend didn't occur until about 1920 and the trend from 1900 until 1980 was pretty level.

The rise was about .6 degrees and from 1900 so I guess I was mistaken that the temperature over the century had risen about 1.5 degrees. I could have sworn that's what the science says.

I see the IPCC was founded in 1988 and it probably took a few years of studying computer models, say 6 years, for there to be a convincing argument to form the organization.

To Saipan: the warm up appears to be from 1980 to 2010.

[jbg]

did your grapes tell you that?...what do your grapes have to say about 2010 being the warmest year on record for canada

You mean your sour grapes?

[waldo]

I didn't expect to see those drops at the end since our activities haven't decreased and more and more carbon is being released all the time, which stays in the carbon cycle for decades. Wouldn't there be a cumulative exponential effect? Especially in light of the fact, we have only a short time frame to correct this or we are all going to die!

natural swings/variations over the shortest of timeframes... strictly U.S. Contiguous (land only)... regional in scope. As you can see elsewhere, those are countered elsewhere across the globe.

From that graph it looks like a warming trend didn't occur until about 1920 and the trend from 1900 until 1980 was pretty level. The rise was about .6 degrees and from 1900 so I guess I was mistaken that the temperature over the century had risen about 1.5 degrees. I could have sworn that's what the science says.

trends over earlier isolated timeframes are equally positive; however, not as dramatic as the relatively recent accelerated global warming. You're mixing Fahrenheit and Centigrade...

[Pliny]

natural swings/variations over the shortest of timeframes... strictly U.S. Contiguous (land only)... regional in scope. As you can see elsewhere, those are countered elsewhere across the globe.

If we are affecting the climate,waldo the natural swings should not be evident.

trends over earlier isolated timeframes are equally positive; however, not as dramatic as the relatively recent accelerated global warming. You're mixing Fahrenheit and Centigrade...

Well, from 1920 to 1940 there is a similar (i.e. just as dramatic) warming trend to the one indicated from 1980 to 2000.

I wouldn't know if I was mixing fahrenheit or centigrade the graph you presented doesn't specify the scale. I think science standardly uses centigrade to avoid such errors, doesn't it?

Edited January 13, 2011 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

If we are affecting the climate,waldo the natural swings should not be evident.

Of course they will be evident. There will still be seasonal changes, El Niño/La Niña oscillations and so on.

[Pliny]

Of course they will be evident. There will still be seasonal changes, El Niño/La Niña oscillations and so on.

There should be either increased or nullifying effects to swings. It's "climate change" not weather as usual. I would be more concerned with dramatic extremes and fluctuations over short periods of time than an increase in .6 C (1.5 degrees F if you are not a scientist) over a century. And now we see any extreme (the weather) pointed to as evidence of "climate change". When it was global warming we couldn't point to weather at all. So where's it heading. Any predictions? How about shutting down all but what is government deemed necessary industrial development? How about having a global authority, unbiased and fair, nonpartisan agency to monitor the global impact of human activity and regulate it?

It is interesting that identifying climate as a problem, not just pollution, has galvanized the powers that be to rally round the flag and get the whole farmyard to head towards the fox's den.

[Michael Hardner]

So where's it heading. Any predictions? How about shutting down all but what is government deemed necessary industrial development? How about having a global authority, unbiased and fair, nonpartisan agency to monitor the global impact of human activity and regulate it?

I'm all for a global authority. I have to answer to external authorities all the time - we all do.

I don't think it's headed anywhere crazy, though. The effects of warming on our future lives is unknown.

[WIP]

It is interesting that identifying climate as a problem, not just pollution, has galvanized the powers that be to rally round the flag and get the whole farmyard to head towards the fox's den.

Since you are always pulling the story about the cooling between 1940 and 1970 as evidence for natural climate cycles, you need to be aware of something that your global warming-denial sources won't inform you about: particulate air pollution that increased during the economic boom after WWII, lowered the albedo of the Earth's atmosphere. Despite the rising CO2 levels, air pollution was slowing down the warming effects of increasing greenhouse gas levels.

And guess what happened after an intensive program to clean up the cities and cut auto exhausts and industrial air pollution? More sunlight is getting through to warm the planet. Kind of ironic, but it sinks arguments put forth that we need to fight pollution first, before worrying about climate change.

Pollution is not as big a problem as dealing with AGW; and that means dealing with all of the negative effects on increasing CO2 levels, since, if we just try to darken the sky to stop the warming, we still have the problem of rising CO2 being absorbed by the world's oceans and raising the process of ocean acidification.

[WIP]

So where's it heading. Any predictions? How about shutting down all but what is government deemed necessary industrial development? How about having a global authority, unbiased and fair, nonpartisan agency to monitor the global impact of human activity and regulate it?

And this is where it begins and ends for you in the climate change debate! Climate change denial seems to come from one of two sources:

1. The economic interests of oil, gas and coal. Besides the billionaires who run these corporations, many people working in these industries are focused on preserving their source of income.

2. Fear of world government. If it's not about the money, the other block comes from the threat that enforcing CO2 reductions cannot be done without a global authority that has enough leverage to make noncompliance a worse option.

And, if I have to pick between world government, and possible extinction by the end of this century, I'll choose the latter.

[wyly]

Since you are always pulling the story about the cooling between 1940 and 1970 as evidence for natural climate cycles, you need to be aware of something that your global warming-denial sources won't inform you about: particulate air pollution that increased during the economic boom after WWII, lowered the albedo of the Earth's atmosphere. Despite the rising CO2 levels, air pollution was slowing down the warming effects of increasing greenhouse gas levels.

And guess what happened after an intensive program to clean up the cities and cut auto exhausts and industrial air pollution? More sunlight is getting through to warm the planet. Kind of ironic, but it sinks arguments put forth that we need to fight pollution first, before worrying about climate change.

Pollution is not as big a problem as dealing with AGW; and that means dealing with all of the negative effects on increasing CO2 levels, since, if we just try to darken the sky to stop the warming, we still have the problem of rising CO2 being absorbed by the world's oceans and raising the process of ocean acidification.

something that relates to that, I read an article about two weeks ago(no I don't have a link)...when planes were grounded after the 9/11 attack N America air temps supposedly rose 2 degrees(I don't recall if it was C or F)...the reason given was the thousands of flights over N America created a cloud cover that reflects sunlight...so if this is true actual temps recorded now should be higher but are being masked by high altitude contrails...

[GostHacked]

something that relates to that, I read an article about two weeks ago(no I don't have a link)...when planes were grounded after the 9/11 attack N America air temps supposedly rose 2 degrees(I don't recall if it was C or F)...the reason given was the thousands of flights over N America created a cloud cover that reflects sunlight...so if this is true actual temps recorded now should be higher but are being masked by high altitude contrails...

Those 'contrails' are having more of an effect than we realize. Take a look at your skies one day. Only takes a couple planes to leave a trail that will dissipate and create a hazy cloud cover over the whole area. What kind of effect is this having on climates?

[waldo]

If we are affecting the climate,waldo the natural swings should not be evident.

you were isolating on the latest couple of years within that U.S. Contiguous graph... certainly, over a period of a couple of years, a possibility exists that natural variability will present itself. That's why climate is 'measured' over a longer term reference; typically greater than 25-to-30 years duration... that's why we have all these idiotic denier focused claims that center around the shortest of time intervals, discounting longer-term trending practices aimed to account for wider swings of natural variability that are known to... or may... surface within short(er) time frames.

Well, from 1920 to 1940 there is a similar (i.e. just as dramatic) warming trend to the one indicated from 1980 to 2000.

not as similar... not as dramatic. In any case, early 20th century warming can be attributed to increased solar activity coupled with the lower volcanic activity of that period.

I wouldn't know if I was mixing fahrenheit or centigrade the graph you presented doesn't specify the scale. I think science standardly uses centigrade to avoid such errors, doesn't it?

the graph has nothing to do with it...your confusion was evident where you stated, "The rise was about .6 degrees and from 1900 so I guess I was mistaken that the temperature over the century had risen about 1.5 degrees."... my suggestion that you were mixing temperature scales reflects upon 20th century global surface temperature that increased by ~0.74°C... which equates to 1.33 °F. Typically, deference is given to Fahrenheit when speaking to U.S. Contiguous temperatures... something about the U.S. aversion to metrification - hey?

[wyly]

Those 'contrails' are having more of an effect than we realize. Take a look at your skies one day. Only takes a couple planes to leave a trail that will dissipate and create a hazy cloud cover over the whole area. What kind of effect is this having on climates?

it was speculation though I don't know how you can verify how much cooling contrails cause without stopping all air traffic for a week...if we were to assume that it has a cooling effect can we say with certianty it is 2 degrees (C or F)?... perhaps it was going to be warmer that week regardless maybe 1.9 and the contrails had a cooling effective of only .1 degree...

[waldo]

it's offical now...2010 is the warmest year in Canada since records have been kept, by 3c...where's the warm up ...there it is!

just released, NOAA's December 2010 temperature anomalies and the NOAA 'State of the Climate Global Analysis Annual 2010' report:

- globally, per NOAA's records, 2010 officially tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record, at 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F).

- globally, per NOAA's records, the 2001-to-2010 decade officially the warmest decade on record.

just released, NASA's December 2010 temperature anomalies:

- globally, per NASA's records, 2010 officially tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record, at 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the baseline global annual mean of 14.0°C (57.2°F).

- NASA's historical global temperature anomalies -

here

: i.e., the "Saipan warm up"!

[Pliny]

I'm all for a global authority. I have to answer to external authorities all the time - we all do.

.

Remember socialism is a "progressive" march. You want a global authority for climate change. Someone else wants a global authority to watch over banks. Someone else wants a global authority to manage the transfer of funds to third world countries. Someone else wants a global authority to catch international criminals. Someone will want a global currency printed by a global authority. Someone will want a global authority to design sustainable cities. Someone will want a global authority to manage resources. Someone will want a global health care system. And that will all mean the necessity for a centralized global tax authority. Then someone will want a global authority to fine recalcitrant national populations recalcitrant to global initiatives. Then, when all that centralization of power is well-concentrated, a power struggle results and the one willing to be the most dastardly, because nice guys finish last, will sieze the reins and we have a totalitarian socialist world. Isn't that great.

I'm just on the watch, Michael.

I don't think it's headed anywhere crazy, though. The effects of warming on our future lives is unknown

You 're worried about a .6 C rise in temperature? That hockey stick graph looks mighty steep at the end

and scary but the scale is designed to accent it.

The effects of warming? Well, if there were no anthropogenic factor in the climate and it started a warming trend what would we do? Attempt to defy the natural cycle out of a fear of the effects of the warming? We can't control climate and until we can we just have to adapt. No one is arguing that we should continue polluting in an irresponsible manner. What is planned is a vast change in the global economy as a solution. Perhaps climate change advocates are raising the necessity level for change and increased responsibility but they are using jackhammer tactics and I just have to say that implementation of the current political plans would be more sweepingly detrimental in the period of a decade than the effects of warming over a century.

Edited January 14, 2011 by Pliny