Global warming skeptics send letter to Congress urging members not

[waldo]

jbg, don't hesitate to indicate what significance you hold for a single localized station amongst the broader large-scale regional and/or global temperature records/trends... you really don't get it - do you? One wonders why, with your eyeball prowess in reading raw data, you didn't just simply offer up the linear trendline... just state how much warming you eyeballed in that raw data!

This graphic is a standard linear plot of the second of the two stations you referenced... the New Brunswick, New Jersey station, using USHCN data; specifically, the Annual Average Mean Temperature (°F). My "eyeball" of that plot shows ~2.5°F annual average mean temperature rise. But... again... it's nothing more than a single localized station. As I mentioned earlier, as this data was drawn directly from the USHCN database, processing considerations apply.

I just don't find a +1C change from 1880 to present to be that scary. Sorry.

Station data is a check on an overall, harmonized, smoothed out graph, and if the graphed data doesn't resember a bunch of individual stations I'm immediately suspicious. Also if warming/cooling at stations reflects better equipment or placement.

again... as presented to you several times now, I went to the trouble of plotting and trending one of the actual localized regional stations that you (mindlessly) cut/pasted reams of raw data for. In the face of the linear trend presented to you, you continue to blatantly downplay it... to ignore it... to claim you just can't "see" any relationship between the global trend graphics and what you "know" and "perceive" to actually be happening in your select localized regional cocoon weather stations. As you well know, we've dealt with (many times over) this, your latest reference to, as you say, "warming/cooling at stations reflects better equipment or placement"... that was Simple's favoured game when you regularly trotted out his TV weatherman challenges to NOAA and the U.S. surface temperature record. Those mindless challenges were most significantly refuted by NOAA, particularly when Simple's favoured TV weatherman actually had the temerity to charge NOAA with fraud. Just as you've done, repeatedly, when you trot out your continual (without foundation/substantiation) charges of fraud labeled against scientists. As always, put up or STFU!

[Keepitsimple]

Interesting quote I saw today:

“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”

Mahatma Ghandi

[lukin]

Inhofe responds to ambush.

[lukin]

Arctic ice volume has increased. that's not what you'd hear from 'ecotard waldo".

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/arctic-ice-volume-has-increased-26-over-the-last-three-years/

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/14/1970s-had-the-most-arctic-sea-ice-in-60-years/

[jbg]

Arctic ice volume has increased. that's not what you'd hear from 'ecotard waldo".

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/arctic-ice-volume-has-increased-26-over-the-last-three-years/

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/14/1970s-had-the-most-arctic-sea-ice-in-60-years/

To be fair to he/she/it a/k/a Waldo, the volume of "old ice" has diminished. I still don't find this troubling given that we're at the beginning of a 30 year "cold phase" after some 30 odd years of "warm phase", similar to what gave us depleted ice during the 1940's.

[WIP]

Arctic ice volume has increased. that's not what you'd hear from 'ecotard waldo".

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/arctic-ice-volume-has-increased-26-over-the-last-three-years/

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/14/1970s-had-the-most-arctic-sea-ice-in-60-years/

A general rule of thumb is that any website calling itself "Real Science," that is diametrically opposed to the consensus of the majority of their colleagues (if these are actually scientists) is likely nothing more disinformation and misinformation for a simpleminded audience of closed minds....and same thing goes whether the subject is global warming, evolution, homeopathy etc.

Here, in this blog post we have a compilation of real science stories on disappearing polar ice with links, just out today:

An ice sheet is a huge layer of land ice. The only ice sheets are in Antarctica and Greenland.

The Greenland ice sheet is losing mass at an accelerating rate. In recent years the ice loss has spread from the south coast around to the northwest.

Similarly, Antarctica is also losing ice at an accelerating rate. Antarctica is basically divided into two distinct ice sheets, the West Antarctic and East Antarctic. The East Antarctic ice sheet, which is much bigger than the West Antarctic one, was until recently considered stable, but has also begun losing ice.

Ice shelves are thick, floating platforms of ice formed when glaciers flow from the land onto the ocean surface.

The Antarctic Peninsula is warming rapidly. Several ice shelves have collapsed completely, including one covering 3,250 km2, almost twice the area of urban Sydney.

Glaciers are retreating around the globe. Although one can point to particular glaciers that are growing, glaciologists look for trends in the total mass of glaciers worldwide. It turns out the world’s glaciers are losing ice at an accelerating rate.

And despite all the hype about a certain mistake in the 2007 IPCC report, the Himalayan glaciers are in fact melting.

Arctic sea ice grows and shrinks seasonally, with an annual minimum in September. In 1979, when satellites first measured it, September Arctic sea ice extent was roughly equivalent to the area of Australia. Since then it has declined by about a third, equivalent to losing Western Australia – outstripping all projections.

Contrarians claim Arctic sea ice has “recovered” since the record low extent of 2007. But sea ice exists in three dimensions, and it has continued to thin rapidly. Ice volume data paints a picture even more dire: the Arctic has actually lost not one third but two thirds of September sea ice. What’s more, the volume reached a record low in 2010 – not an encouraging sign of recovery.

2010 set the stage for continued melting. At the end of the summer, a record-breaking 86% of ice cover was less than two years old; ice older than five years has all but disappeared. The remaining new ice is thinner and much easier to melt than older ice.

So, are all these reports of sea ice, ice sheets, and mountain glaciers receding all wrong? And it's a handful of dubious credentialed experts who get payed by the oil companies - can explain away these apparent signs of massive scale warming. When there is a clear consensus of expert opinion on a technical subject, it's usually the majority who are on the right side, not the ones working from political agendas and collecting money from dubious sources!

[waldo]

Arctic ice volume has increased.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/arctic-ice-volume-has-increased-26-over-the-last-three-years/

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/14/1970s-had-the-most-arctic-sea-ice-in-60-years/

and just who is the know nothing blogger "steven goddard"? Why... he's the nutter exiled from Simple's favoured TV weatherman's blog - just how bad does one have to be, to be punted from WTFIUWT!

here lukin... the same reply I pasted you with the last time you tried your Arctic sea ice increasing nonsense:

- from the NSIDC (National Snow & Ice Data Center): Average Monthly Arctic Sea Ice Extent - 1979 to 2010 => a linear trend of 6.2% loss per decade. Of course, we've repeatedly covered this off in several previous MLW thread references... as significant as the extent trend loss is, extent loss doesn't really reflect upon the real issue of the loss of multi-year loss; i.e., the loss of the thickest older ice that builds up over many years. A significant part of the current remaining ice extent is single year ice, that which grows and melts year-to-year... the longer-term warming trend has significantly melted the multi-year ice, which is truly reflected in a look at the actual ice volume

- from the Polar Science Center: Arctic Sea Ice Anomaly & Trend => Monthly average Arctic Ice Volume for Sept 2010 was 4,000 km^3, the lowest over the 1979-2010 period, 78% below the 1979 maximum and 9,400 km^3 or 70% below its mean for the 1979-2009 period. Shaded areas represent one and two standard deviations of the anomaly from the trend

[waldo]

the volume of "old ice" has diminished. I still don't find this troubling given that we're at the beginning of a 30 year "cold phase" after some 30 odd years of "warm phase", similar to what gave us depleted ice during the 1940's.

do you have something new to offer to support your mindless, without foundation and without substantiation, continued bleat of your favoured "30 year cyclical warm/cold phase" nonsense? Have you finally found the time... have you finally beat back the time management constraint you advised was keeping you from providing the support, providing the foundation, providing the substantiation, to your continued rambling over a "30 year cyclical warm/cold phase" being the causal link for global warming... for being responsible for climate change impacts... particularly the impacts you so trumpeted; i.e., glacier retreats, Arctic ice extent/volume, Greenland ice-sheet loss, projected ice-free Northwest Passage?

if you have nothing new to offer, I'll just continue to replay this same block-quote... over and over and over, each and every time you spew forth your "30 year cyclical warm/cold phase" bullshit... as I have done, over and over and over, each time I've noticed you play out your idiocy. Enjoy... and take note of the Sept 29, 2010 date where you initially advised of your intent to "research and advise". Still waiting...

I also note you appear to have backed off on the lacking substantiation to your oft stated MLW 30-year cyclical climatic event meme... you now appear quite willing to simply go with your own personal anecdote... suggesting, now, that you've, "lived long enough to see the weather cycles". Seeing is believing, hey jbg? In any case, please note, I won't abandon the ready bookmark to the following post - the one still waiting on your self-described, "lack of time management", to adequately address!

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.

[Keepitsimple]

Inhofe responds to ambush.

That video says a lot about the alarmists.

[waldo]

That video says a lot about the alarmists.

that video shows exactly what the infamous denier U.S. Republican Senator Inhofe is all about... denies the consensus science; bleats off about the science is "mixed"; repeatedly ignores the several references the interviewer makes to the National Academies, the majority of climatologists, world-wide scientific organizations; throws out the standard Republican throwback about tax increases ruining the U.S. economy (that the U.S. would be doing it in isolation of the rest of the world); blah, blah, blah.

[GostHacked]

Seems like you are treated the same no matter of you deny the holocaust .. or man-made global warming. *yawn*

[wyly]

Seems like you are treated the same no matter of you deny the holocaust .. or man-made global warming. *yawn*

the weight of evidence makes denial of either event equally absurd...

[lukin]

Seems like you are treated the same no matter of you deny the holocaust .. or man-made global warming. *yawn*

Ghosthacked, read a book titled "Red Hot Lies" by Christopher Horner. This book explains how powerful the alarmist lobby really is, and how they have have manipulated the media and politicians, among many others. You'll enjoy it.

[lukin]

Waldo the ecotard must get paid by the alarmist lobby to post his nonsense on here.

As for some facts about the Arctic:

The Arctic during the early Holocene was warmer and had less ice cover than the present. Also, Arctic summer temperatures during the last Interglacial period were 4 to 8 degress C warmer than the present.

Waldo is full oh hot air, a typical blowhard.

[Keepitsimple]

Following on JBG's posting on the arctic ice expanding......I think it deserves as much coverage as when it's decreasing - an increase of two million sq. Km. - and still expanding - is pretty good news.

Recent cold snap helping Arctic sea ice, scientists find

Last Updated: Friday, February 15, 2008 | 10:17 AM ET

CBC News

There's an upside to the extreme cold temperatures northern Canadians have endured in the last few weeks: scientists say it's been helping winter sea ice grow across the Arctic, where the ice shrank to record-low levels last year.

Temperatures have stayed well in the -30s C and -40s C range since late January throughout the North, with the mercury dipping past -50 C in some areas.

Satellite images are showing that the cold spell is helping the sea ice expand in coverage by about 2 million square kilometres, compared to the average winter coverage in the previous three years.

"It's nice to know that the ice is recovering," Josefino Comiso, a senior research scientist with the Cryospheric Sciences Branch of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre in Maryland, told CBC News on Thursday.

"That means that maybe the perennial ice would not go down as low as last year."

Canadian scientists are also noticing growing ice coverage in most areas of the Arctic, including the southern Davis Strait and the Beaufort Sea.

"Clearly, we're seeing the ice coverage rebound back to more near normal coverage for this time of year," said Gilles Langis, a senior ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa.

Winter sea ice could keep expanding

The cold is also making the ice thicker in some areas, compared to recorded thicknesses last year, Lagnis added.

"The ice is about 10 to 20 centimetres thicker than last year, so that's a significant increase," he said.

If temperatures remain cold this winter, Langis said winter sea ice coverage will continue to expand.

But he added that it's too soon to say what impact this winter will have on the Arctic summer sea ice, which reached its lowest coverage ever recorded in the summer of 2007.

That was because the thick multi-year ice pack that survives a summer melt has been decreasing in recent years, as well as moving further south. Langis said the ice pack is currently located about 130 kilometres from the Mackenzie Delta, about half the distance from where it was last year.

The polar regions are a concern to climate specialists studying global warming, since those regions are expected to feel the impact of climate change sooner and to a greater extent than other areas.

Sea ice in the Arctic helps keep those regions cool by reflecting sunlight that might otherwise be absorbed by darker ocean or land surfaces.

Link: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.html

Edited February 16, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[lukin]

Following on JBG's posting on the arctic ice expanding......I think it deserves as much coverage as when it's decreasing - an increase of two million sq. Km. - and still expanding - is pretty good news.

Link: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.html

Exactly. don't let the ecotards (waldo,wyly etc.) fool you. They also don't want you to know the truth about Antarctica. Alarmists are losing it. Wyldo is proof of that.

[GostHacked]

the weight of evidence makes denial of either event equally absurd...

Give me a f*cking break please. The ones who are in denial are the ones who think CO2 is going to kill us all. Look around you and the toxic world we live in. I mean there is a huge ass garbage patch in the middle of the damn ocean. No one says shit about that. And you want to cure things by removing Co2 ??? How much garbage do you throw out on a daily basis? How much carbon-monoxide is spewed into the air? Sulphur dioxide, ... the amount of chemicals we put willy nilly into the environment... why do I have to fill my windshield washer fluid again? I mean where the hell does it go?

There are other things that are going to kill us all loooooong before global warming will. But if you want to continue to have the powers that be rape each and everyone of us for something that really is NOT a problem, then continue. If you are tired of being consistantly robbed and coersed info being fearful of everything ... come on the powers that be are nothing more than Chicken Littles wanting to control every aspect of your life.

Edited February 17, 2011 by GostHacked

[jbg]

Following on JBG's posting on the arctic ice expanding......I think it deserves as much coverage as when it's decreasing - an increase of two million sq. Km. - and still expanding - is pretty good news.

Link: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.html

Thanks for giving me (undeserved) credit. Had I seen it I would have posted it. But alas I didn't.

[Bonam]

Give me a f*cking break please. The ones who are in denial are the ones who think CO2 is going to kill us all. Look around you and the toxic world we live in. I mean there is a huge ass garbage patch in the middle of the damn ocean. No one says shit about that. And you want to cure things by removing Co2 ??? How much garbage do you throw out on a daily basis? How much carbon-monoxide is spewed into the air? Sulphur dioxide, ... the amount of chemicals we put willy nilly into the environment... why do I have to fill my windshield washer fluid again? I mean where the hell does it go?

Indeed. I recall when the big environmental causes were deforestation, species extinction, garbage and pollution, etc. All those problems still exist, are bigger than ever, but have been all but forgotten and ignored while the focus has shifted to global warming. I think those issues are far more serious and urgent.

[GostHacked]

Indeed. I recall when the big environmental causes were deforestation, species extinction, garbage and pollution, etc. All those problems still exist, are bigger than ever, but have been all but forgotten and ignored while the focus has shifted to global warming. I think those issues are far more serious and urgent.

The focus shift is on purpose, I think you and I see that. It is quite obvious it is being done. But as long as we are in denial denial denial, if I stop breathing will that help the CO2 problem?

Before the likes of waldo and Co. I say again, give me a f*cking break and get real.

[GostHacked]

Ghosthacked, read a book titled "Red Hot Lies" by Christopher Horner. This book explains how powerful the alarmist lobby really is, and how they have have manipulated the media and politicians, among many others. You'll enjoy it.

I'll make note of it and look for it this week, thanks for the tip.

[lukin]

I'll make note of it and look for it this week, thanks for the tip.

But beware, waldo will mention all kinds of bad things about the author courtesy of the fine folks at Greenpeace.

Greenpeace called Horner a "climate criminal". After reading that the ecofacists called him a climate criminal made me go out and buy the book. I'm learning plenty, and you will too, GH.

[wyly]

Give me a f*cking break please. The ones who are in denial are the ones who think CO2 is going to kill us all. Look around you and the toxic world we live in. I mean there is a huge ass garbage patch in the middle of the damn ocean. No one says shit about that. And you want to cure things by removing Co2 ??? How much garbage do you throw out on a daily basis? How much carbon-monoxide is spewed into the air? Sulphur dioxide, ... the amount of chemicals we put willy nilly into the environment... why do I have to fill my windshield washer fluid again? I mean where the hell does it go?

There are other things that are going to kill us all loooooong before global warming will. But if you want to continue to have the powers that be rape each and everyone of us for something that really is NOT a problem, then continue. If you are tired of being consistantly robbed and coersed info being fearful of everything ...

no give me a fucking break...it was you who posted a flippant comment

Seems like you are treated the same no matter of you deny the holocaust ... or man-made global warming. *yawn*

YOU implied there was no AGW...now you come on with all this phony indignation deflecting to general pollution...there was no discussion of pollution you're now attempting distance yourself from a stupid statement...

come on the powers that be are nothing more than Chicken Littles wanting to control every aspect of your life.

oh! the irony of that statement you want to control a tiny issue like windshield fluid but not CO2 emissions ...windshield fluid breaks into it's components 90% of which is water, 10% methanol, the methanol evaporates into carbon, hydrogen and oxygen... Edited February 17, 2011 by wyly

[wyly]

The focus shift is on purpose, I think you and I see that. It is quite obvious it is being done. But as long as we are in denial denial denial, if I stop breathing will that help the CO2 problem?

Before the likes of waldo and Co. I say again, give me a f*cking break and get real.

focus shift! you mean like deflecting to general pollution away from CO2 emissions

you've invented a new denier tactic all on your own..."when unable find scientific evidence to support your denial change the subject and deflect to generalized pollution"...

Edited February 17, 2011 by wyly

[GostHacked]

no give me a fucking break...it was you who posted a flippant comment YOU implied there was no AGW...now you come on with all this phony indignation deflecting to general pollution...there was no discussion of pollution you're now attempting distance yourself from a stupid statement...

You've not been paying attention to any of my posts in any of these CO2 threads have you? It's been my position from the start to combat toxic pollutions which Waldo even agrees with (although he won't admit it at all, because one of his other posts ends up saying exactly what I am saying. So expect more flippant comments. If combatic toxic emissions results in a side effect of reducing CO2, then what is the problem? The focus? We are all focusing on putting less garbage into the environment. Is that not a worthy goal? Is that not something we should be doing? Why just the focus on this one little tiny insignificat item?

You got a garbage patch in the ocean the size of twice the land mass of Texas. This does not concern you at all? Marine life and microbes end up feeding on this garbage that is in the ocean. I bet they get a good dose of nutirents from that. This is an IMMEDIATE threat to the oceans, but we are focues on something that may happen down the road. It's simply astonishing when I hear people only talk about CO2. Every single one who is on the CO2 bandwagon is blind and cannot see, or not willing to see a bigger picture here. Plastics in the oceans, in our garbage, GMO foods with terminator seeds, and the chemicals needed for farming, carbon monoxide which is not good for anyone.

The scale and scope of how we have collectively FUCKED this planet 20 ways from Sunday, is mind boggling. It's pathetic. So if you want to delude yourself and conintue on just trying to combat CO2, then you are surely screwed. I'll fix the rest of the issues, while you and the rest of the 'whatever term of convenience you are using to call it today', climat change, no global warming, no man-made global warming....no wait climate change .. cause guess what .. climate DOES change. No matter what we do.

Edited February 17, 2011 by GostHacked