Scientists Challenge UN and Gore

[Saipan]

El Nino's and La Nina's have been happening in the Pacific for eons, and does not explain the recent trends, like melting glaciers and permafrost.

But previous warm periods do.

There is no "melting trend" here, and Europe, and Asia. All as usual if not cooler.

[waldo]

If human-caused increases in atmospheric CO2 are not causing global temperatures to rise, and oceans to acidify, what are the causes of this:

1.Scientists may have found the most devastating impact yet of human-caused global warming — a 40% decline in phytoplankton since 1950 linked to the rise in ocean sea surface temperatures. If confirmed, it may represent the single most important finding of the year in climate science.

This ignores the impact of the decadal trends affecting El Niño and La Niña, otherwise known as "ENSO", for "El Niño Southern Oscillation". The "warm phases" and "cold phases" have a roughly 30 year alternation with perhaps some short "neutral" periods in the mix.

The last "cold phase" lasted from 1947 to 1977 and the last "warm phase" ended somewhere between 1998 and 2007. I personally think we were neutral from 1998 to 2007 in terms of the long term phase. Thus, it is no surprise that there'd be a gain in ocean temperatures as a result of natural forces.

El Nino's and La Nina's have been happening in the Pacific for eons, and does not explain the recent trends, like melting glaciers and permafrost. The contradictory claims that global warming has stopped recently ( previous to a record year 2005, it was claimed to have stopped in 1998) are based on measurements restricted to land and atmospheric measurements -- and ignore the energy accumulating in the world's oceans, not to mention the heat energy being absorbed by polar glaciers which are melting at an increasing rate of speed as a result. The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance created by rising carbon and other greenhouse gases.

hey WIP... welcome back - missed your posting. In any case, this is just jbg... being jbg. He's got a bad case of this "30-year natural cyclic" cause for global warming... he's got it bad... reeeallll bad! It's causes him to repeatedly offer up claims - claims that he advises he can't substantiate because of a "time management issue"; i.e., he has time to keep making the claims (over and over and over)... just no time to actually research and offer up a substantiation to that end!

yes... yes you do... ceaselessly point out your mindless obsession that presumes to attribute global cooling and global warming to a natural 30 year cyclical climatic event... yes you do! Repeatedly - through many climate change related threads.

When last challenged on your nonsense, you suggested your research and advisement would be forthcoming... how's that coming along?

if the PDO is what you're holding up as "proof"... let's be clear... are you suggesting that the PDO, by definition an oscillating temperature pattern, is responsible for the accepted long-term warming trend... you do accept the long-term warming trend, right? Notwithstanding the PDOs oscillating pattern, one would expect you should be able to show a PDO warming trend coincident with long-term temperature trending, right? You should be able to show that, right?

Not sure what point you want to make here.

the point was... you were offering up the PDO as the causal link to global warming... to the global warming impacts mentioned... you were speaking of 30 year cyclical reversals as the causal link for the highlight points Hazeleyes mentioned... glacier retreats, Arctic ice extent/volume, Greenland ice-sheet loss, projected ice-free Northwest Passage. The point was... if you're going to offer up the PDO as the causal link to global warming/impacts, you better be able to step up and substantiate that by providing a like association, a like long-term trend, between the PDO index and global temperature anomolies. Otherwise... all you've proposed is that a, by definition, oscillating temperature pattern (the PDO), a pattern that does not hold within it a long-term warming trend, is the "proof you spoke of" for global warming/impacts. Show the

long-term trend correlation

... you can show that correlation between the PDO index and global temperature anomolies - right?

equally, there's just something about it's name... that there 'Pacific' reference... as a climate phenomena found primarily in the North Pacific. Perhaps you could extend upon just how that 'locality' translates into a global affect, one particularly targeted towards your initial post on this subject (i.e. the references to glacier retreats, Arctic ice extent/volume, Greenland ice-sheet loss, projected ice=free NW Passage, etc.).

The Pacific Ocean is the world's largest ocean. Also, being West of the North American land masses, it has a direct impact on much of the Americas' weather, and an indirect impact through teleconnections over a much broader area.

Next.

next?

you're quite funny... you're wanting to take a localized phenomenon, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a phenomenon centered principally in the North Pacific, and suggest it's significant enough to bring forward global temperature impacts... that it's the cause for global warming, that it will result in, as you stated, 30 year cyclical reversals of global warming impacts; specifically those mentioned by Hazeleyes (i.e. glacier retreats, Arctic ice extent/volume, Greenland ice-sheet loss, projected ice-free Northwest Passage). Teleconnections??? Oh, please... let us have some of that D'Aleo wisdom you so freely dispense - we can have some real fun then, hey?

Will research and advise but my recollection is that the PDO and global temperatures move in lockstep.

[Pliny]

If human-caused increases in atmospheric CO2 are not causing global temperatures to rise, and oceans to acidify, what are the causes of this:

The high number means extinction for the human race in less than 200 years!

Looking ahead towards the end of this century, our children and grandchildren are likely to be crowded out by waves of Americans, Chinese, and whoever else is trying to push their way north to try to stay alive in a desperate post-apocalyptic world......have a nice day!

Now you've gone and gotten everyone depressed, WIP!!!

Hopefully, in 200 years we will have developed some sort of climate control. We are learning so much today, aren't we? If not maybe, in keeping with your motif of depressing everyone, we will already have killed ourselves off and become extinct.

If we're intelligent enough maybe we will start infesting the rest of the galaxy, with colonies on Mars or maybe even other galaxies. Like a festering wound or metastasized cancer, polluting as we go and destroying the natural beauty and all life in the universe.

....have a nice day!

[waldo]

A book I picked up recently is Climate Wars by Gwynn Dyer. Since his expertise is in foreign policy and military intrigues, it was a little surprising to see him venturing into this territory two years ago. But apparently Dyer decided to explore the human side of climate policy when he became aware that Pentagon, CIA, and Bush Administration officials took the climate change issue very seriously, and were secretly trying to map out strategies for dealing with climate-caused droughts, famines, wars and massive refugee crises that they see occurring in the near future, despite Bush's official policy of global warming denialism. The one big unanswered question I was left with after reading the book is what does this tell us about the motives of the Pentagon planners? It struck me that -- rather than forcefully lobby for action to save the planet, these people had signaled that they view most of Earth's inhabitants as expendable! Some sort of collateral damage of the climate wars I suppose; since a do-nothing strategy of saying nothing and allowing our present course to continue spells doom for the large populations living in the tropical regions closer to the equator.

Not to be a dick here, but is this guy sanctioned by the NOAA or the IPCC??? Can he really be used as a qualified source?

You seem to have totally missed the point! Gwynn Dyer writes about world affairs issues, not climate change. As I mentioned previously, he says the reason he was drawn into this issue was because five years ago, the U.S. government officials that he talks to regularly, were giving him a much different story off the record, than the official Bush Administration talking points. They seemed to take climate change seriously, and were trying to map out how it would impact U.S. foreign policy over the coming decades.

oh ya... across several past MLW threads, I've made reference, several times now, to the significance the U.S. Defense Department places on security and threats relative to climate change (the Quadrennial Defense Review - Crafting a Strategic Approach to Climate and Energy)... made reference to the Annual Threat Assessment given to the U.S. Senate by the U.S. Director of National Intelligence... and a reference to the CIA's positioning in regards U.S. national security impacts relative to climate change. One of the MLW usual suspects claimed this is simply nothing more than proactive 'war games' strategy... what if scenarios, if you may!

That "price" is already factored in...we already know that. Nobody should expect otherwise....now it's time for the scheming "climatologists" to admit the same thing.

bush_cheney, I'm quite worried that all this climaty stuff has

co-opted the abilities of your mighty Intelligencia & Make War Dept

... dammit, just where the hell are things headed when they all engage in this nonsensical strategic planning related to climate change’s impact on military operations and security. The Great Satan has no time... no need... to embrace this climaty stuff - doesn't anyone in authority read the British tabloids!!! Doesn't anyone follow Shady's indepth analysis?

my gawd, this affects us all - as goes the U.S. so goes the rest of us following in your wake... I believe that's what you've been trying to convey all these years, right? C'mon... bush_cheney... can you pleeeeese bring this forward at your next tea-party - this can't be allowed to carry forward.

just how could this ever happen??? Those, as you say, "scheming climatologists", must be uber clever to have so hood-winked your Defense Department and the U.S. Intelligence Community... it wouldn't surprise me if those Ruskies are behind it all - cold war blow-back... it's a beeatch!

I've posted previously about the recent U.S. Defense Departments "Quadrennial Defense Review" (re: it's authoring of a "Strategic Approach to Climate and Energy")... fresh off of that silliness, we now have the just released Annual Threat Assessment given to the U.S. Senate by the Director of National Intelligence... where we're confronted with this nonsensical position:

We continue to assess that global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for US national security interests over the next 20 years because it will aggravate existing world problems—such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership, and weak political institutions—that threaten state stability. (In my classified statement, I discuss the recent UN-sponsored climate change conference in Copenhagen.) Climate change alone is highly unlikely to trigger failure in any state out to 2030, but it will potentially contribute to intra- or, less likely, interstate conflict. Water issues, which have existed before the recent changes in the climate, will continue to be major concern. As climate changes spur more humanitarian emergencies, the demand may significantly tax US military transportation and support force structures, resulting in a strained readiness posture and decreased strategic depth for combat operations. Some recent climate science would indicate that the effects of climate change are accelerating, particularly in the Arctic region and on mountain glaciers that impact critical watersheds

bush_cheney, make it stop! Please... save us one, save us all!!!

bush_cheney... it's got it all! Flag waving, support the troops, energy independence, national security... patriotism!!! Climate patriots - denying is... treasonous, bush_cheney - treasonous!

threat multiplier... enabling terrorism/terrorists!!! Damnit, bush_cheney... make it stop! Please... save us one, save us all

[bloodyminded]

On one side we have "Bryan" for coldest year on record, on the other side we have NASA saying it's the warmest year on record.

Who to believe... who to believe....

Yes, when the credentials and knowledge are so perfectly matched, who to believe......?

[Saipan]

Yes, when the credentials and knowledge are so perfectly matched, who to believe......?

One thermometer or two.

[bloodyminded]

One thermometer or two.

You're just being argumentative for its own sake. You don't believe what you're saying.

If you look at the temperature, and it's warmer than usual, I suspect you won't suddenly concede you were mistaken...even by the very (pathetic and ludicrous) standards you personally have laid out.

Since it only works one way for you, we therefore know indisputably that you're full of horseshit on this matter...intentionally so.

[Saipan]

You're just being argumentative for its own sake. You don't believe what you're saying.

Actually YOU don't believe what I say. Like Jehovah Witnesses your mind is made up no matter what happen. And your post is the evidence

If you look at the temperature, and it's warmer than usual, I suspect you won't suddenly concede you were mistaken...

If I burn more firewood each year I KNOW what it means. If my grapes go from full ripe 10 years ago to shriveled little green BB's by first frost last year I KNOW what it means. THEN I check the news and regular weather reports on The Weather Network - 'round the globe. And don't see ANY global warm up. I also visit Europe and SouthEast Asia and still don't see any global wam up.

Then I know Al Gore and David Kawasaki are full of it. But I understand. With $o much dough it'$ hard to re$ist to keep on bullshiting.

[bloodyminded]

Actually YOU don't believe what I say.

No one does.

If I burn more firewood each year I KNOW what it means. If my grapes go from full ripe 10 years ago to shriveled little green BB's by first frost last year I KNOW what it means.

So if these circumstances change next year, you will suddenly change your mind about AGW?

Please.

If you can't even have an honest discussion, why bother?

Edited December 24, 2010 by bloodyminded

[WIP]

hey WIP... welcome back - missed your posting.

Thanks! Sometimes I need to get away from discussing issues and politics because it ends up just going in circles after awhile. I'll try to stay connected here at some level; I don't want to leave all of the heavy lifting to you on what I believe is the most important issue facing the world today.

[WIP]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/innovation/12/13/forest.restoration/index.html?hpt=C2

Just because there are boneheads who are going to push forward with carbon offset strategies, doesn't mean that there is any value in it! From the article I posted previously, the problem is that outside of that narrow band around the equator, planting trees will increase heat, rather than reduce it:

Professor Caldeira and his colleague Govindasamy Bala, of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, also in California, said that outside a thin band around the equator, forests trap more heat than they help to get rid of by reducing CO2

Their research comes in the wake of criticism from scientists of forestry schemes to offset carbon emissions, which they argue let consumers carry on polluting with a clear conscience. The schemes are big business; within three years, the market is expected to reach £300m.

"North of 20 degrees [latitude] forests had a direct warming influence that more or less counterbalanced the cooling effect of carbon removal from the atmosphere," said Prof Caldeira. Past 50 degrees, forests warmed the Earth by an average of 0.8C. But in the tropics forests helped cool the planet by an average of 0.7C.

Dr Bala explained that forest canopies, because they are relatively dark, absorbed most of the sun's rays heating falling on them. Grassland or snowfields, however, reflected more sun, keeping temperatures lower. Planting trees above 50 degrees latitude, such as in Siberia, could cover tundras normally blanketed in heat-reflecting snow.

[Saipan]

Merry Christmas

and

Happy New Year

to all of you!

[GostHacked]

Just because there are boneheads who are going to push forward with carbon offset strategies, doesn't mean that there is any value in it! From the article I posted previously, the problem is that outside of that narrow band around the equator, planting trees will increase heat, rather than reduce it:

The proposal seems to be concentrated on the warmer climates.

"North of 20 degrees [latitude] forests had a direct warming influence that more or less counterbalanced the cooling effect of carbon removal from the atmosphere," said Prof Caldeira. Past 50 degrees, forests warmed the Earth by an average of 0.8C. But in the tropics forests helped cool the planet by an average of 0.7C.

So plant more trees in those warmer climates where it will be effective.

Dr Bala explained that forest canopies, because they are relatively dark, absorbed most of the sun's rays heating falling on them. Grassland or snowfields, however, reflected more sun, keeping temperatures lower. Planting trees above 50 degrees latitude, such as in Siberia, could cover tundras normally blanketed in heat-reflecting snow.[/i][/indent]

However forests are cooler than cities. But what about this, if more trees are planted and the CO2 is scrubbed out of the air, would this not eventually bring temps down because of less CO2? Or does having more trees contribute to warming, and we are back to square one? And why was the earth cooler 150 years ago when the world was covered in forests,

Why do you feel warmer in an open field compared to the canopy cover of the forest?

Edited December 25, 2010 by GostHacked

[Guest TrueMetis]

However forests are cooler than cities. But what about this, if more trees are planted and the CO2 is scrubbed out of the air, would this not eventually bring temps down because of less CO2? Or does having more trees contribute to warming, and we are back to square one? And why was the earth cooler 150 years ago when the world was covered in forests,

That's sort of a myth, for the most part animals prevented the mass spread of forests. Horses, Aurochs, and other browsers would eat any sapling before it could grow very large. It wasn't until humans caroled or killed these animals in the last couple thousand years that forests really started to expand. Look at most forests in Europe, they support barely any animals at all. Most of the animals you see inside them (like deer) are alone even though they are really more of a herd animal. This is because forests (except rain forests generally) can't support more than a few animals in a given area. While in the few grassland reserves you can see hundreds in not thousands of deer together in herds.

[Saipan]

More forests = more firewood = warmer at home

[Saipan]

Science: Another Ice Age?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

(1974)

[William Ashley]

The Heat: The chances are extremely good that 2010 will rank as the hottest year on record, at least to date, although the final verdict will not be available until the second week in January. But in northern regions like Hudson Bay, where the absence of ice was prolonged, temperature increases were greatest. Concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were measured as high as 390 parts per million; 350 parts per million is the commonly-accepted threshold beyond which serious changes in sea levels and precipitation may occur.

All those climate change deniers out there.. what does this say to you.. more lies?

Why is the Harper Government muzzling and blinding Environment Canada on the subject?

You don't just cut out a departments eyes and toungue for nothing.

Hmm, could they be trying to hide something?

Edited January 7, 2011 by William Ashley

[Saipan]

All those climate change deniers out there.. what does this say to you.. more lies?

That is lot of baloney. Opinion is just that. The real facts are here:

http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climateData/canada_e.html

Why is the Harper Government muzzling and blinding Environment Canada on the subject?

Why do the alarmists can't come up with any evidence?

[GostHacked]

That's sort of a myth, for the most part animals prevented the mass spread of forests. Horses, Aurochs, and other browsers would eat any sapling before it could grow very large. It wasn't until humans caroled or killed these animals in the last couple thousand years that forests really started to expand.

Animals prevented the mass spread of forests? Not buying that for a second.

Look at most forests in Europe, they support barely any animals at all.

Because most of Europe is inhabited by humans in large cities with massive railway and highways connecting them which severely restricts animals from moving about (natural migration), so the populations are concentrated in one area, then slowly die out because other animals has the same notion, they are all fighting over less forest/grassland because humans have driven them to that stage.

Most of the animals you see inside them (like deer) are alone even though they are really more of a herd animal. This is because forests (except rain forests generally) can't support more than a few animals in a given area. While in the few grassland reserves you can see hundreds in not thousands of deer together in herds.

Maybe you can clear that up, but it does not make much sense to me.

Not only that your statements do not offer any proof of the cities being colder than forests.

Edited January 7, 2011 by GostHacked

[Guest TrueMetis]

Animals prevented the mass spread of forests? Not buying that for a second.

Because most of Europe is inhabited by humans in large cities with massive railway and highways connecting them which severely restricts animals from moving about (natural migration), so the populations are concentrated in one area, then slowly die out because other animals has the same notion, they are all fighting over less forest/grassland because humans have driven them to that stage.

Yes that would have some effect but then how do you explain places like Oostvaaderplassen? 3000 deer, horses, and wild cattle in a 5,600 hectares reserve of reclaimed land in the Netherlands. These large herbivores have prevented trees from growing for some 40 years. There are some problems like a lack of natural predators so the animals die during winter instead but the populations are stable, and there is a plan to begin connecting reserve to fix the problem of them not being able to migrate.

Maybe you can clear that up, but it does not make much sense to me.

A forest can hold no more than 3 deer per a couple of hundred acres, Oostvaaderplassen supports 16 times that amount. Imagine hundreds of red deer running in a herd.

Not only that your statements do not offer any proof of the cities being colder than forests.

The point I was responding to was the idea that Europe being covered in forests was the natural state when it's not.

[Saipan]

A forest can hold no more than 3 deer per a couple of hundred acres

Pure nonsense.

Recently I sold 84 acres of bush on St Joseph Island (at Sault Ste Marie, ON) I used it mostly for hunting and last few years I only rented it to hunters as I was too busy to go there. On average 5 deer were harvested every year and it didn't make a dent to the herd.

[William Ashley]

That is lot of baloney. Opinion is just that. The real facts are here:

http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climateData/canada_e.html

Why do the alarmists can't come up with any evidence?

Your post only makes me understand why crack is a prohibited substance.

Are you a bot? You don't seem to have human reasoning capacity.

Read this: http://www.climateactionnetwork.ca/webyep-system/program/download.php?FILENAME=67-at-PDF_File_Upload_4.pdf&ORG_FILENAME=Troubling-Evidence-The-Harper-Government%92s-Approach-to-Climate-Science_Research_in_Canada.pdf

think about it and come back with an educated opinion.

You can read can't you?

Edited January 8, 2011 by William Ashley

[Saipan]

Your post only makes me understand why crack is a prohibited substance.

And it should stay that way with drugs.

think about it and come back with an educated opinion.

I take it you don't like Environment Canada collecting actual data..

[Michael Hardner]

I take it you don't like Environment Canada collecting actual data..

What are you talking about ? Didn't you yourself say that you don't need data to know that cooling is happening ? Something about the size of your firewood pile ?

[Saipan]

What are you talking about ?

About Environment Canada, which I thought you believe in, and I posted link to.

Didn't you yourself say that you don't need data to know that cooling is happening ? Something about the size of your firewood pile ?

Yes, both the amount of wood I use to heat my house (sometimes even in the summer) and my thermometer. Would you take my word for it or rather the Environment Canada. Take your pic.