Global Warming

[sunsettommy]

I see the "warming fanatics" in the Bush administration are finally acknowledging the alarming rate of melting in the polar region and are calling for polar bears to be declared an at-risk species.

Please provide the information that Polar Bears are actually an at risk species.

[sunsettommy]

Try these links about the well proved Suns increasing output.

Link#1

March 20, 2003 - (date of web publication)

NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/t...irradiance.html

Link#2

Solar Irradiance Reconstruction

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

World Data Center for Paleoclimatology, Boulder

and

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/c..._irradiance.txt

Link#3

Sun more active than for a millennium

09:00 02 November 2003

Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.

Jenny Hogan

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4321

Plus this link:

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns...n4321-1_550.jpg

Link#4

The Sun is More Active Now than Over the Last 8000 Years

Then we have this showing evidence of the Suns INDIRECT effect on other cosmic influences that effect the earths atmosphere:

Cosmic rays and Earth's climate

JunkScience.com

October, 2006

Summary: Almost ignored by the media the Royal Society has quietly published what may prove to be the most significant paper on Earth's climate in decades. Here we present background on the paper and explore some of its ramifications.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosm...and_climate.htm

An international team of scientists has reconstructed the Sun's activity over the last 11 millennia and forecasts decreased activity within a few decades

The activity of the Sun over the last 11,400 years, i.e., back to the end of the last ice age on Earth, has now for the first time been reconstructed quantitatively by an international group of researchers led by Sami K. Solanki from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany). The scientists have analyzed the radioactive isotopes in trees that lived thousands of years ago. As the scientists from Germany, Finland, and Switzerland report in the current issue of the science journal "Nature" from October 28, one needs to go back over 8,000 years in order to find a time when the Sun was, on average, as active as in the last 60 years. Based on a statistical study of earlier periods of increased solar activity, the researchers predict that the current level of high solar activity will probably continue only for a few more decades.

emphasis mine

http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDoc...elease20041028/

Then we have this:

Cosmic rays and Earth's climate

JunkScience.com

October, 2006

Summary: Almost ignored by the media the Royal Society has quietly published what may prove to be the most significant paper on Earth's climate in decades. Here we present background on the paper and explore some of its ramifications.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosm...and_climate.htm

[sunsettommy]

Sea surface temperature data is gathered from ships, and more recently also by satellites. Irregular coverage and urban heat island effect are two problems faced when compiling global average temperature trends, but these problems have been investigated and are being compensated for. Whether this is sufficient I don't personally know, but the scientific community seems to think so.

Data gathering from ships based on highly variable collection methods at erratic times and of irregular depths.

Irregular temperature data coverage and highly variable temperature data quality of monitoring stations are well known.That is why it is a mistake to say they are a reliable indicator of global temperatures.

Gosh if you pass aside your dislike of Junkscience long enough to see just how variable the temperature data is:

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.htm

LOL.

Urban Heating Island effect is NOT being fully accounted for by various researchers.Warwick Hughes has been exposing some of the problems on his website.

The Scientific Community allegedly thinks so but they can still be wrong.

They have been many times before.

[sunsettommy]

These links are junk:

The CRU provides sea surface temperature data too:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalie...01-2000mean.dat

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalie...01-2000mean.dat

The sst data alone show an 0.15C/yr warming trend from 1998-2006

Try better ones.

[sunsettommy]

It's known that the early 20th century warming is likely to be mostly solar caused given the significant solar increase then. But in a way that makes it harder to explain the last 30 years of warming given no such significant increase in solar activity in the past 50 years, but an equal amount of warming in the past 30.

I just provided some links showing that the Sun is CURRENTLY well above the average in solar irradiance of the past 1000 year and even up to 8000 years.

[jdobbin]

I see the "warming fanatics" in the Bush administration are finally acknowledging the alarming rate of melting in the polar region and are calling for polar bears to be declared an at-risk species.

They ultra right wing here will disagree. They'll say ice has never been thicker, polar bears never thrived so much and how it is colder than usual this year.

[sunsettommy]

I see the "warming fanatics" in the Bush administration are finally acknowledging the alarming rate of melting in the polar region and are calling for polar bears to be declared an at-risk species.

They ultra right wing here will disagree. They'll say ice has never been thicker, polar bears never thrived so much and how it is colder than usual this year.

Just more rebuttaless postings from you.

Try Democrat Underground instead where such shibboleths are welcomed.

Shoggoth,I can respect despite not seeing the same picture as he does about the issues of Global warming.

You after being corrected several times in other threads have allegedly put me on ignore.

That alone says alot.

Please dump the retorical B.S. and either discuss the topic itself or just stay quiet.

[jdobbin]

Officials from the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service studied all the recent science about polar bears, and they say it presents a powerful picture.

"The Arctic is warming, and the trends are showing an acceleration in warming. With that warming we're seeing movements of warmer fresh water into the Arctic and continued reduction in the amount of ice that's available for polar bears to make a living on," said Scott Schliebe, polar bear project leader for the Fish and Wildlife Service and main author of the proposal.

As the ice shrinks, polar bears find it harder to hunt for seals, their primary food source.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6687070

What is clear from the numerous studies this article cites is that the U.S. federal government is sufficiently concerned that something is happening in the Arctic. They see a lot more melt and fewer polar bears. Today, a report said a Canadian island in the Yukon is disappearing due to the melt.

http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/...-5-413-2005.pdf

The western Canadian Arctic is identified as an area of potentially significant global warming. Thawing permafrost, sea level rise, changing sea ice conditions and increased wave activity will result in accelerated rates of coastal erosion and thermokarst activity in areas of ice-rich permafrost.

[BubberMiley]

Please provide the information that Polar Bears are actually an at risk species.

Personally I would worry that people might consider my credibility suspect if my position was further out of touch from reality than even the Bush administration.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews....-POLARBEARS.xml

[Nazia]

I feel bad for the animals....

[jbg]

I see the "warming fanatics" in the Bush administration are finally acknowledging the alarming rate of melting in the polar region and are calling for polar bears to be declared an at-risk species.

Even on the assumption that the climate change is cyclical, polar bears still might have a problem where their range protrudes well south of the Arctic Circle. As the New York Times article (link) excerpted below shows, these cycles cause other, more immediate problems such as fires:

December 26, 2006

Study Links Fires to Ocean Temperatures

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 7:41 p.m. ET

*snip*

Scientists have long seen a relationship between weather in the United States and El Nino, a warming of water in the South Pacific.

When El Nino is strong, the Northwest typically has drought and severe fire seasons, and the Southwest has rain. When the cycle reverses, known as La Nina, the South Pacific cools, the Northwest has more rain, and the Southwest has drought and fires.

Less well understood are two other climate drivers, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, known as the PDO, centered in the North Pacific, which typically changes every 10 to 20 years, and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, or AMO, which is marked by warming and cooling periods of 20 to 60 years in the North Atlantic.

El Nino-La Nina is thought to be the most influential cycle, but the Atlantic and Pacific oscillations can magnify or diminish those effects when strong phases of the three cycles come together, Swetnam said.

''Over the last 400-plus years in our fire history study, when the AMO was positive (producing warm temperatures in the North Atlantic), then you would get big fires breaking out synchronously across the West,'' Swetnam said. ''That's what we saw in 2002 and 2006.''

*snip*

The study gathered data from 241 logging sites around the West, compiling the dates of 33,795 fire scars on 4,700 stumps to develop a history of fires in the West dating to 1550.

The fire history was compared to a reconstruction of the Atlantic Decadal Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and El Nino.

The most severe fire seasons fell between 1660 and 1710, when the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation was at its warmest, the study found. The least severe fire seasons happened from 1787 to 1849, when North Atlantic temperatures were at their coolest.

The study comes after another published this year in the journal Science found that a sudden and dramatic increase in western wildfires in the late 1980s was related to a pattern of earlier springs and warmer summers. Swetnam and Cayan both took part in that study.

Greg McCabe, a climatologist for the U.S. Geological Survey in Denver, said his research has been showing a connection between North Atlantic Ocean temperatures and the drought that is gripping much of the West, which creates conditions for major fires.

''I think what Tom has written is really good,'' McCabe said. ''More and more people are starting to see there is something there. We do know the tropical Pacific (home to the ocean warming condition known as El Nino) is a key player in global climate. But on longer time scales it looks like the Atlantic also has some influence.''

[newbie]

More bad news for the anti-global warming kooks: link

[shoggoth]

Try these links about the well proved Suns increasing output.

It's not increasing enough to explain the recent 30 years of warming though. A lot of the links you post are about solar activity being higher this century than in the last few thousands of years. There is still a lack of significant upward solar trend in the past 50.

The first link is the only relevant one, which I have seen before. But the increase isn't significant enough to explain the recent warming. It's nothing like the early 20th century solar increase, which is said to explain most of the warming then.

Cosmic rays and Earth's climate

JunkScience.com

October, 2006

Summary: Almost ignored by the media the Royal Society has quietly published what may prove to be the most significant paper on Earth's climate in decades. Here we present background on the paper and explore some of its ramifications.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosm...and_climate.htm

This is just an example of junkscience.com's bias significantly affecting what they mention and what they don't. Junkscience.com has a pattern of jumping all over the problems and uncertainties with scientific explainations that doesn't afford their agenda (eg AGW), as well as quibbling over minor irrelevant details to muddy the issue. On the otherhand they uncritically accept any scientific explaination that does fit their agenda (anything solar in general) without a peep. And why they expect this paper to be mentioned by the media (are most papers?). In fact this one got quite a lot of coverage.

Reading that article you would think galactic cosmic rays are a theory with absolutely no problems. They make no effort to explain the uncertainties and problems with the hypothesis (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...ays-for-a-spin/), and I suspect that this is because they have no desire to want to do so.

[shoggoth]

Data gathering from ships based on highly variable collection methods at erratic times and of irregular depths.

Sure there is uncertainty and error ranges involved, but that only means there are error ranges in the data, not that it is all random useless noise.

Irregular temperature data coverage and highly variable temperature data quality of monitoring stations are well known.That is why it is a mistake to say they are a reliable indicator of global temperatures.

Can you quantify how innaccurate they are? Otherwise couldn't it be that they are accurate enough?

Gosh if you pass aside your dislike of Junkscience long enough to see just how variable the temperature data is:

I can see how variable the temperature data is by going to the primary sources. I don't see any of that backs up the point you just made. If it is all too unreliable then how come 1998 comes out consistantly as a very warm year in all the records available? If it was totally inaccurate and unreliable we would expect 1998 to be a cold year in some records and warm in others. The upward trend over the past 30 years is a little too strong to be due to random chance. The evidence does strongly point to a warming trend in the last 30 years.

Urban Heating Island effect is NOT being fully accounted for by various researchers.Warwick Hughes has been exposing some of the problems on his website.

If he was really exposing problems he would publish, not post them on some website. The urban heat island effect is not even a contensious area. Everyone knows it is a bias that must be corrected for. If he can show it's not being corrected right in a particular study then he could easily publish. The fact he doesn't more suggests his objections would not survive the scrutiny of the authors of the study he is critisizing.

I suspect that he is nitpicking mainly. That while he is maybe raising some genuine problems in a few studies he isn't actually showing that the urban heat island effect as a whole can explain the recent warming trend. Certainly it would be interesting to see how he would explain rising satellite records in the past 30 years as biased by urban heat island effect, or rising ocean temperatures, or even temperatures rising from rural stations alone with urban stations removed.

There have been plenty of studies done on the urban heat island effect that show it to not be a significant bias (as in not a bias that can explain the whole warming record, ie the recent warming is not an artifact of UHI effect)

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/wmo/ccl/rural-urban.pdf

All analyses of the impact of urban heat islands (UHIs) on in situ temperature observations suffer from inhomogeneities or biases in the data. These inhomogeneities make urban heat island analyses difficult and can lead to erroneous conclusions. To remove the biases caused by differences in elevation, latitude, time of observation, instrumentation, and nonstandard siting, a variety of adjustments were applied to the data. The resultant data were the most thoroughly homogenized and the homogeneity adjustments were the most rigorously evaluated and thoroughly documented of any large-scale UHI analysis to date. Using satellite night-lights–derived urban/rural metadata, urban and rural temperatures from 289 stations in 40 clusters were compared using data from 1989 to 1991. Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures. It is postulated that this is due to micro- and local-scale impacts dominating over the mesoscale urban heat island. Industrial sections of towns may well be significantly warmer than rural sites, but urban meteorological observations are more likely to be made within park cool islands than industrial regions.

The Scientific Community allegedly thinks so but they can still be wrong.

They have been many times before.

More often than not it's the opposing opinion coming from websites which are wrong.

[shoggoth]

These links are junk:

The CRU provides sea surface temperature data too:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalie...01-2000mean.dat

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalie...01-2000mean.dat

The sst data alone show an 0.15C/yr warming trend from 1998-2006

Try better ones.

This one isn't broken, is the directory where they are all stored:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies

There are land datasets, ocean datasets and land+ocean datasets.

The ocean one comparible with junkscience.com's land one (90S-90N 1901-2000mean) is: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalie...01-2000mean.dat

[shoggoth]

It's known that the early 20th century warming is likely to be mostly solar caused given the significant solar increase then. But in a way that makes it harder to explain the last 30 years of warming given no such significant increase in solar activity in the past 50 years, but an equal amount of warming in the past 30.

I just provided some links showing that the Sun is CURRENTLY well above the average in solar irradiance of the past 1000 year and even up to 8000 years.

You also mentioned the explaination that the warming seen in the ground surface record over the last 30 years is an artifact of the urban heat island effect. If that were true then it means the sun isn't responsible for any of the warming seen in the record in the past 30 years. Any warming urban heat island is responsible for, the sun cannot be, and vice versa. So either they are both responsible in part, or one is responsible and the other is not at all.

The early 20th century temperature increase correlated with a rather large solar output increase, but the recent temperature increase doesn't correlate with any such large solar increase. The NASA study you linked to is only a very subtle increase compared to the early 20th century increase. If that subtle rise can explain 0.5C warming seen in the records over the last 30 years then the much large solar increase seen in the early 20th century should have caused much more of an increase.

Perhaps there is a lag involved though. Perhaps the warming now is just a continuation of the early 20th century warming trend caused by the large solar increase back then. Perhaps something in the 40s-60s was countering the warming trend but whatever that was has now gone and the warming trend caused by high solar output is continuing. That's a possibility which I cannot see any evidence against.

[jdobbin]

Reading that article you would think galactic cosmic rays are a theory with absolutely no problems. They make no effort to explain the uncertainties and problems with the hypothesis (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...ays-for-a-spin/), and I suspect that this is because they have no desire to want to do so.

I have posted the Real Climate response to the cosmic rays theory before but many of the anti-climate change people simply dismissed it.

It does present a warming trend as does ocean currents but never adequately explains the entire rise in temperature.

And the latest news on Arctic ice:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

A giant ice shelf the size of 11,000 football fields has snapped free from Canada's Arctic, leaving behind a trail of floating icy boulders.

Scientists said the mass of ice broke clear 16 months ago from the coast of Ellesmere Island, in Canada's remote north.

[jbg]

You also mentioned the explaination that the warming seen in the ground surface record over the last 30 years is an artifact of the urban heat island effect. If that were true then it means the sun isn't responsible for any of the warming seen in the record in the past 30 years. Any warming urban heat island is responsible for, the sun cannot be, and vice versa. So either they are both responsible in part, or one is responsible and the other is not at all.

Not true. The urban heat island effect is a distortion of recorded temperatures. The solar forcing effect does raise overall temperatures. In other words, even during a cooling, the urban heat island effect will raise temperatures at stations close to urban centers.