Once Again, Cold Weather Doesn't Disprove Global Warming

By Andrew Moseman | January 8, 2010 5:54 pm

snowstormWhen the Copenhagen climate summit ended in disappointment and finger-pointing, we saw again just how difficult it would be to get the world’s nations on board for an agreement to lower greenhouse emissions and slow global warming. This week brings another reminder of how far away we are from meaningful action: We can’t even get past the difference between weather and climate.

It’s bitter cold this week, even for January. Beijing had its coldest morning in almost 40 years and its biggest snowfall since 1951. Britain is suffering through its longest cold snap since 1981 [AP]. The southern United States is in the grip of freezing weather; the Midwest has seen dangerously cold wind chills far below zero. Trying to stave off the inevitable “where’s your global warming now” chants, the AP and other news sources rushed to run pieces trying to get across—one more time—that weather isn’t climate. The chants came, inevitably. But despite pundits and columnists who try to conflate the two to take the same old swings at global warming, a single bout of cold weather—or hot, for that matter—doesn’t actually say diddly squat about long-term climate patterns.

However, if one can set aside for a moment climate politics as usual and this weather-is-climate misunderstanding, the short-term weather patterns at play in our current spell of frigidity are pretty interesting. Whatever happened to this year’s El Niño, for instance? Shorter-term, naturally variable patterns such as El Niño account for seasonal differences — making one winter warmer or colder than another.  But it takes a strong El Niño to dominate the pattern of a U.S. winter with unusually warm and dry conditions across the northern tier of the country, and cooler and wetter weather across the south, and the current El Niño is not strong [Discovery News].

In addition, there’s the curious case of the current Arctic Oscillation, which is rather out of sorts. Essentially, air pressure is measured at various places across the Arctic and at the middle latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere – about 45 degrees north, roughly the latitude of Milan, Montreal or Vladivostok. The difference between the average readings for the two latitudes gives the state of the Arctic Oscillation index [BBC News]. A positive reading means high pressure in the mid-latitudes and low pressure at the pole; a negative reading means it’s the opposite. And what we see right now is an “extraordinary negative plunge” to levels not seen since at least 1950, Andy Revkin shows at his New York Times blog. What these conditions mean is that cold air spills out of the Arctic down to mid-latitudes, which this time round includes much of Europe, tracts of the US and China [BBC News].

As you can see in the historical chart of the Arctic Oscillation, it’s a pretty scattershot phenomenon. But it’s an important one, which could help to explain why it’s frigid in the continental United States but unseasonably nice in some far northern locales. In 2001, after analyzing its impact on Northern Hemisphere winters, University of Washington researchers suggested that effects of the Arctic Oscillation on weather patterns “appear to be as far-reaching as those triggered by El Niño in the South Pacific” [Discovery News]. Jack Williams has more about this.

Related Content:
80beats: The New Murder-Mystery Game: Who Killed Copenhagen?
The Intersection: Fox News Presents a Classic “He Said, She Said” on Climate Science
The Intersection: Sounds Familiar
The Intersection: How the Global Warming Story Changed, Disastrously, Due to “ClimateGate”
DISCOVER: The Next Ice Age

Image: flickr / bsabarnowl

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Environment
  • Stephanie

    Thank you for clearing this up for those of us who are not very educated when it comes to climate change. My husband is on the fence about it (he’s leaning towards the deniers). I will send this to him so he can read it. :)

  • Troy

    I agree with the weather-is-not-climate comment and therefore the colder than usual winter, in some places, is not an argument against global warming. But, to be fair, the global warming proponents comments that extreme hurricanes and other harmful weather is linked to atmospheric changes caused by co2 also seems unfounded.

  • WhatMeWorry

    For the alarmists, when the weather is hot, it’s due to Global Warming. When the weather is cold, it’s due to Climate Change.

  • Mike

    Thanks for this post. So many folks I know who are deniers are having a field day with the cold weather. I call ‘em – empirically challenged.

  • StyroPhome

    The cool weather we’re having now is due to a three year solar minimum (solar minimum is low magnetic energy revealed by low sunspot activity) we are in right now. The warming trend over the last 100 years is due to an mostly increasing spike in the 11 year ebb and flow of magnetic activity.

    Higher acitivty and the earth warms, lower activity and the earth cools.

    The warmer the oceans, the more co2 released into atmosphere, ocean cools, it absorbs co2 out of the atmosphere. Co2 levels increase due to warming planet. Or, the earth isn’t warming because co2 level increase.

    I beg you not to believe me…just spend an hour studying sunspots…its on the net…you’ll see.

  • Ronnie D

    I too have been on the fence for some time, and this article helped me make a decision.

    After many years of subscribing to Discover Magazine, I am canceling because the editors are obviously a part of the global warming clique, and have abandoned objectivity.

    According to your science, I need to put a 12 pack in the oven to make it cool down, and should fill my ice trays with hot water to make ice faster.

    This would be a great article for the April Fool’s edition.

  • Lola

    Why is it that when we have unusually hot weather, these people who think weather and climate are the same thing don’t suddenly decide global warming is real?

  • C. Bruce Richardson Jr.

    I would agree that an occasional cold snap doesn’t disprove anthropogenic global warming. However, anyone can download the data from GISS, HadCRUT, NOAA land & ocean, UAH, or RSS and see for themselves that there has been a cooling trend that started sometimes before. The different data sets show somewhat different start dates. The UAH satellite data shows around 2001 as I recall. It is possible to hide any short term trend by averaging the data over 30 years. In fact, some folks are doing just that. But why hide it? And is trying to hide it intellectually honest?
    .
    The IPCC claimed that increasing CO2 was responsible for most of the warming that started around 1975. By 1980, temperatures were back up to where it had been around 1944. At the same time that CO2 was doing most of the warming, the natural oscillations were mostly in a warm phase. But the claim is that mostly, the warming wasn’t due to those natural oscillations. However, now that it has been trending cooling for over 5 years, those same natural oscillations are being credited for the cooling. They were not strong enough to have caused the warming but now they are in a cooling phase and it is cooling, AGW advocates are willing to say that they are strong enough to totally counteract the CO2 forcing (claimed) and provide a significant cooling trend to boot. Anyone who is willing to think critically is going to have trouble accepting the natural cycles cool but don’t warm claim. Particularly when many of AGW advocates are still trying to claim that it hasn’t been cooling.

  • Eve

    I have a hard time understanding why people cannot remember. Remember the stories we have heard about how hot is was in the 30’s and 40’s. In reality the warm spike in the 20’s, 30’s and 40’s warmed more than the one we have just left behind. Then remember the ice age scare in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s? I will never forget my mother telling me that “they thought we were going into another ice age. Then it warmed a bit in the 90’s, stayed the same for a while and now it has been cooling big time for the last 3 years. Where does C02 induced warming fit into that?

  • Hamuel

    @StyroPhome

    Its on the net! That must mean Timecube is real!!

    http://www.timecube.com/

  • Chuck Cardiff

    This might be convincing if there were not a very obvious downward trend trend in U.S. temperatures over the last three years. See NOAA’s chart http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=national&image=ann/timeseries02&byear=2009&bmonth=01&year=2009&month=12&ext=gif&id=110-00

    I expect the response to this will be “Well, yeah, but it was warmer in Tanzania” or something equally silly.

  • some guy

    And again, misinformed people speak out loud about their grandmother’s story, sadly unrelated to the current climate change science. Remembers folks, DATA IS ANALYZED FROM AROUND THE GLOBE, NOT ONLY FROM THE FREAKIN’ STATES.

    It’s a shame the US is the most self centered nation in the world. They cause massive greenhouse gazes emissions since the 1900’s, AND will argue about how normal it is to burn fossil fuel at an alarming rate even if nature took million of years to create these resources.

    To shame with the retards, stop looking at “OMG DENIERS WEBSITE LOLOL” and start reading Nature instead. You WILL learn a thing or two about how statistical analysis is done.

  • Chuck Cardiff

    You know, some guy, if I thought you had even a rudimentary knowledge of mathematics and the sciences I might take your remarks seriously. Yes, go pull some charts of multi-year adjusted moving averages from the Hadley Climate Center without having the vaguest bloody clue of where the data came from or how it was adjusted, and think it makes your point. I bet it has never even occurred to you to ask, how on earth is something like “global temperature” computed?

  • Rex Bunn

    A neighbour loaned me the ultimate answer to the Global Warming {GW} question. It’s a new book by Australias leading geologist Prof Ian Plimer…”Heaven+Earth” published in May 2009 by Connorcourt Publishing. The first printing sold out in 4 weeks.

    It’s a 500 page book ( with 2311 references). It is however, written simply and entertainingly for everyman. It dissects the science behind GW. It shows the science is biassed and selective, and the fundamental assertions by the GW lobby are unsupported, indeed contradicted by the planets geological record.

    I thought Plimer was very close to libelling the GW lobby, Mann et al: till I recalled the defence against libel… is the truth. Plimer speaks the truth. I was prepared to accept GW till I read this book. Now I understand it is just bad science, worse in fact than the Cold Fusion scandal.

  • rick

    Your bias towards global warming is obvious. I am sick of reading only pro-warming PR from left-wing extremists. Why are you not including real science from the other side? I will be canceling my subscription.

  • http://darinmorgan.com/ Darin Morgan

    As someone stated in another post, ” For the alarmists, when the weather is hot, it’s due to Global Warming. When the weather is cold, it’s due to Climate Change.” I could not have said it better myself. The alarmist cant have it both ways!

  • MartyM

    Even though it’s cold now, people forget the weather just a few months ago. The mid section of the country (where I live) had an unusually cool July and August, but in June it was record breaking heat, and the deniers I know forgot that. All while the Pacific Northwest was breaking heat records left and right.

    In my locale, this year we broke the record for the latest 1st freeze of the year which happened after Thanksgiving. The last time the temp reached below 0 F was in 1999. In fact, last night was the closest to that temperature we been in the past 10 years but didn’t match or beat it.

  • Eli

    Mathematical, scientific illiteracy and one its consequences: Global warming denial.

    The mathematician John Allen Paulos wrote a book recently called “Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences.” Some of the types of mistakes committed by global warming deniers remind me of some the types of mistakes Paulos described.

    Essentially, if you want to sum up in one capsule the type of mathematical, scientific mistakes made by the global warming deniers when they try to use such things as temporary downward trends in temperature, it would be this: They argue with the hidden assumption that change in nature must occur per either a one-to-one function (strictly increasing or strictly decreasing) or a monotonic function.

    This assumption is of course silly.

    These global warming deniers would of course deny that they make this assumption. But if you carefully think about what they’re actually arguing, this silly assumption is in fact there behind all their attempts to use such things as short term cooling trends.

  • Thomas

    I did find Mike’s comment that those who point to observations of now 10 years of no global warming as “empirically challenged”

  • jon

    then by that logic, warm weather doesn’t prove global warming.

  • Overquoted

    Damn sunspots. You ever consider the possibility that maybe the IPCC scientists, who probably have more knowledge on the subject than you or I could ever hope for, might’ve…just maybe…taken into account outside variables? Like, I don’t know, a basic physics class that might isolate forces to explain the reason for an object’s acceleration? You know, logic.

  • http://www.freethegods.com David Scott

    I could be paddling a rowboat down Market Street in San Francisco after the poles have melted, and there will still be conservative fanatics who deny that humans are responsible for Global Warming or that it is even real. Please, read this article on this urgent issue: http://pltcldscsn.blogspot.com/2009/12/conservatives-still-deny-global-warming.html

  • bobtow

    Mathematic scientific calculations to predict global warming! Very Technical! Only, the mathematics used are as flawed as the individuals using it. They think that all they have to do is reduce the scale and they will arrive at the proper answer. But that really never works out . When you predict the earth,s size and scale, how do you know you have the precise scale? How much air is effected ? How does the sun fit in your equasions? How does the continuing minute changes of the earth’s orbit affect the weather? I have heard one “scientiific” pro warming group actually state the the sun has absolutel no effect on the earth’s temperture! As for these solar panels that they uproot trees to install, How much solar warming are the emitting while losing the earth cooling ability of trees? Has anyone calculated the effects of the millions of miles of blacktop on roads and parking lots? global warming is nothing other than a pseudo religion, based on ill prepared jargon, with no real bases in fact. .

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHUR3rqRaYw Harman Smith

    @6, 15
    “After many years of subscribing to Discover Magazine, I am canceling because the editors are obviously a part of the global warming clique, and have abandoned objectivity.”

    “Your bias towards global warming is obvious. I am sick of reading only pro-warming PR from left-wing extremists. Why are you not including real science from the other side? I will be canceling my subscription.”

    Why do I have the feeling neither of you have subscriptions?

    @20
    “warm weather doesn’t prove global warming”

    It doesn’t; it’s about climate, not weather. Let’s suppose my country experiences a few summer days that are extremely hot and dry in such a degree that it is highly unusual. Does that mean that the Netherlands has a mediterranean climate, because of those hot, dry summer days? No, the climate here is oceanic, not mediterranean. Unusual weather doesn’t change the climate.

    @3
    “For the alarmists, when the weather is hot, it’s due to Global Warming. When the weather is cold, it’s due to Climate Change.”

    Again, it’s not about weather. People use different terms for different reasons. Why I used the term ‘unusual’ and not ‘atypical’ or any other term that shares a similar meaning in the paragraph above is almost entirely arbitrary. The globe is warming. The climate is changing. It’s not like it’s mutually exclusive here, in both cases it is correct.

  • Fox news fantasy camp.

    Hi folks! Rupert Murdoch here. I’m with some of my friends from the oil and coal industries.What we’d like you to do is step outside and grab your ankles. Now walk back in backwards- we have something to show you.

  • JAMES O

    RESPONSE TO RONNIE D: Drink less warm beer and … go back to school! Hot water can in fact freeze faster than cold water for a wide range of experimental conditions. This phenomenon is extremely counter- intuitive, and surprising even to most scientists, but it is in fact real. I’ve known about since studying it at the University, several decades ago. It has been seen and studied in numerous experiments. While this phenomenon has been known for centuries, and was described by Aristotle, Bacon, and Descartes, it was not introduced to the modern scientific community until around 1969. Look it up.

  • igor

    What the hell will it take to expose the LIE of GLOBAL WARMING now called CLIMATE CHANGE.
    Exposing the string of fudged data and professional threats has not done it.
    Now the coldest temps the northern hemisphere has seen in over 40 years.
    I guess the discover editor COREY S POWELL does not want to give up the MONEY HE IS MAKING OFF PERPETUATING THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX.
    SHAME ON THIS SITE.

  • Waitin’for the warmth

    To Someguy:

    Reading Nature will show us how statistical analysis is really done alright. McIntyre and Mckitrick already showed that when random data is fed into Michael Mann’s model, a hockey stick graph pops out, when a true statistical analysis should show a flat line. You need to start reading more than just the pro-AGW propaganda yourself before you make statements that show you have your blinders on. After reading this article, I’m glad I never subscribed to this magazine. When data is cherry-picked, anything can be shown to be statistically significant, but it doesn’t mean the result is true. The AGW “scientists” have been very selective in which weather stations they pull temperature data from and which ones they ignore or “add value to”.

  • http://www.westminsterco-realestate.com Adrian

    This is ridiculous. Just because you have record low temperatures some people can tell global warming is not happening! The climate of the earth is so complex that one can simply say that global warming is not happening due to once in a blue moon low record temperatures.

  • Dougetit

    A day or month or even years of record cold temperatures are not enough to prove that AGW is not happening. But, when Co2 is claimed to cause “never before seen” rates of global warming, maybe over a decade of data may help convince the drones.

    Well, both the UAH and RSS Satellite sources have released thier global temperatures for December 2009, and both show the continuing cooling trend since 1998, while Co2 continues to rise. I only have one question. How many more decades of cooling will it take before the deniers of FACT realize that they have been hoodwinked?

  • Eli

    When will the global warming deniers stop committing the acts of mathematical, scientific illiteracy I briefly explained in my first comment above?

    The real question is whether humanity’s spewing ever-increasing amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere causes an upward trend in global temperature. So the graph of global temperature since humanity started spewing large amounts of the stuff into the atmosphere more than a century ago is the graph to look at.

    When we look at this graph and apply curve fitting, we do not see a one-to-one function or more generally a monotonic function, but we do see an upward trend in this graph. This upward trend is a brute mathematical fact. It’s as factual as the upward trends over long periods of time we see with stock prices, even though their graphs are neither of these two types of function. The mathematical illiteracy of the global warming deniers is to try to argue against this fact with subsets of this graph which are the local or short-term downward trends.

    The scientific illiteracy of the global warming deniers comes in when they implicitly try to argue that change in nature – including cause and effect – must occur per either a one-to-one function or more generally a monotonic function, that the graphs that show change in nature – including cause and effect – must be the graphs of one of these two function types.

    If you don’t agree that global warming deniers commit these acts of mathematical, scientific illiteracy, then you need to go no further than the comments on this very web page made by the global warming deniers in reply to the above article to see a very, very small sample of what we see on the web, that they do commit these acts of illiteracy.

    These global warming deniers need to be called out on these acts much more often than is presently the case. That they are called out on it presently little or none of the time gives them permission to continue to mislead and miseducate the public, and thus continue the general type of illiteracy that so much of the public has, the type that Paulos was essentially speaking against in his book. (This book is the one I mentioned in my first comment above, titled “Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences.”)

  • unknown soldier

    David Scott,
    Really?? This article/website is your source that GW is real? In all honesty, I am not against the concept of GW. I firmly believed in it for many years, I would say I’m reconsidering my stance, but I do believe that there are consequences of using finite resources.
    But this article just makes the argument for GW look pathetic. This author believes that we need to worry about meteors destroying the Earth, or that the ISS is what needs to be worked on so we can recolonize in space. Don’t think people don’t check ‘sources’.

    Chuck Gardiff,
    I’d like to say it was an “obvious downward trend” as well, if it weren’t for the fact that the bar goes up, not down. I don’t get it, we’re looking at the same graph, right? If your argument is that the average temperature over the course of the last 100 years is still being maintained, I’d agree with you. Just reword your response.

  • Guy

    I’ve been paying attention to this debate for quite some time and I’m still not buying the AGW argument. The fact that the warming trend has stalled since 1998 while CO2 levels have risen, is evidence enough that we don’t really know what is causing climate change.

  • Marshall P

    Guy –

    Many folks choose to pick out 1998 as the warmest year on record, yet that’s yet another instance of confusing ‘weather’ and ‘climate’. Having one unusually warm year doesn’t disprove the overall trend any more than one unusually warm day in May would disprove the fact that August is usually the hottest month. Climate change is about long-term average effects! Many other factors affect weather from year to year, such as the El Nino/La Nina Pacific oscillation, the Arctic Oscillation discussed in this post, and much more. Weather is complex, unquestionably! But despite that complexity, the fundamental science of climate change driven by CO2 levels is now extraordinarily well established.

    You assert that ‘the warming trend has stalled since 1998′ – but that’s simply not supported by the empirical data. The last decade has included 8 of the top 10 hottest years in all of recorded history. In fact, by some measurements, 2005 was significantly warmer than 1998. Add in 1998 and 1997, and you have all 10 of the top hottest years ever. Worldwide, the effects of this are being felt more and more clearly. Consider the terrible drought now gripping Australia after its warmest decade ever: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/05/2785653.htm?section=australia Consider the bark beetle infestation that’s devastating western US forests: http://www.hcn.org/issues/278/14853 . Consider the killing of coral reefs due to ocean acidification, a direct consequence of increased atmospheric CO2: http://oceanacidification.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/coral-reefs-being-destroyed-by-ocean-acidification-from-greenhouse-gases/

    There is a vast amount of climate data now available online from weather stations around the world, satellite monitors, and state-of-the-art computer models. See for instance http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/ . Some of these data are in a very technical format, while others–such as the rapid melting and retreat of glaciers around the world–are visually obvious even to non-experts. The world is changing.

    The overwhelming majority of atmospheric and earth scientists find these data tell a compelling story of a rapidly warming world, with shifts in climate due primarily to the increased CO2 released by fossil fuel burning. The strength of these conclusions is clear in the IPCC report, and the many statements made by scientific agencies worldwide recently at Copenhagen. Anyone who attempts to argue that there is still significant dispute about the science is mis-characterizing the truth. Yes, there are still some very vocal deniers, but these folks tend just to recycle old arguments that have been put to rest by experiment and observation. This small fringe should be taken no more seriously than other peddlers of pseudo-science, like the hysterical anti-vaccine folks or the deniers of evolution.

    The best site I can recommend for anyone on the fence is the Skeptical Science page on climate change: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php . That site discusses in turn each of the major arguments against CO2-driven-climate-change, and explains the evidence which shows that those arguments are wrong and the world really is warming.

  • Dougetit

    Eli@31

    “That they are called out on it presently little or none of the time gives them permission to continue to mislead and miseducate the public”

    And surely you refer to the hoaxters whose fraudulent data you base your beliefs on?

    Who is the denier?

  • Eli

    What Guy just said is a perfect example of some of what I am talking about in my first two comments. Guy – like so many who argue against AGW – is arguing that cause and effect in nature must occur per a one-to-one function. (The cause and effect here is, simply put, that since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, increasing atmospheric CO2 results in increasing global temperature.)

    You recall from basic high school algebra what a one-to-one function looks like as a graph, right? Remember the horizontal line test? A graph that is a one-to-one function is one that passes the horizontal line test. (If you still don’t know what I’m talking about, I suggest you Google some terms to refresh your memories.) So if a function is one-to-one and increasing, it will pass the horizontal line test – it has a positive slope at all points, no temporary downturns.

    Guy – like so many who argue against AGW – argues that since the graph of increasing global temperature does not pass the horizontal line test (and so is not a one-to-one function), increasing CO2 cannot be causing increasing global temperature.

    But it’s a fact – a fact that we all should know – that cause and effect in nature does not always occur per a one-to-one function – that is, the relevant graph will not always pass the horizontal line test.

    So why do so many of those who argue against AGW keep making this mistake, keep arguing that cause and effect in nature must occur per a one-to-one function?

    I think it’s because this mistake they’re making has not been explicitly pointed out to them. (This is why I said what I said at the end of my second comment.)

    To Dougetit: I do not base my “beliefs” here on fraudulent data. As I said before, the relevant graphs have a starting point at the time humanity starting pumping meaningful amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, which is well back in the 1800’s. Google “global temperature increase” and look at the images section of the results and look at all the relevant graphs. These graphs show a trend that is up, in spite of these graphs not showing one-to-one functions.

  • Fatkid

    Why all this B.S. about cancelling subscriptions? I am texting this on my phone to discover for free, as many of you are. Thank you for giving me a great, free, opportunity to sound off.

    As for the GW deniers, creationists, and fox news hounds, thanks for letting them expose their beliefs to the antiseptic light of peer review!

  • Dougetit

    Fatkid@36

    Another one who believes in mythical data. As if submitters who didn’t tow the AGW line were not intimidated/barred from publishing. You need to do more research before quoting “Peer review”. Google “climategate” for starters.

  • sHx

    @12

    “Remembers folks, DATA IS ANALYZED FROM AROUND THE GLOBE, NOT ONLY FROM THE FREAKIN’ STATES.”

    I take it you haven’t got a clue where most of the “data from around the globe” comes from.

  • Thomas

    Whoa! Isn’t it the current belief that the Earth is starting a 20 to 30 year cooling trend due to the changing THC’s? Prof Latif and his colleagues were right about this coming cold snap and their paper states that these cycles are responsible for 50% of the warming. Now even the most faithful of AGW believers have said that solar variables other than irradiation were responsible for 50% of all 20th century warming and now this study suggesting THC’s are responsible for the other 50%; where does Co2 fit in? I don’t know about you, but I prefer to listen to people who have been proven right (Latif predicted this in a paper in 2008) and not listen to people who admit that they can’t explain for the lack of warming, have constantly had their theories proven wrong time after time and have holes in their theory yet still try to say that the science is settled.

  • Dougetit

    Eli@35

    Sorry pal… Again… You are basing your belief on bogus Data! No one knows what the temperature has been in the past hundreds or thousands of years within an accuracy of (+/-) 2 1/2 deg C. but wait… CRU has the raw thermometer data.. oops…. they deleted it…. sorry. So this leaves us with only satellite data with accuracy of (+/-) one one hundredths (1/100) of a degree C. which both RSS and UAH both show more than a decade of cooling in their 30 year history. This in itself shoots down the AGW theory because of the fact that the AGW crowd has been claiming that because of MM Co2, temperatures would rise unusually faster than historical records. This simply has not been happening as well as the fact that none of the 21+ computer models had predicted the “Lack of warming”. Left with only the available scientific facts, don’t be a denier! OK?

  • KentD

    Two factors to consider: Motive and consequences.
    Motive: If all those NPCC scientists are scheming to push this whole AGW conspiracy on us, why? Do they get rich off this? On the other hand, what do deniers have to gain? Oil companies have a lot to gain if they can keep us using oil. Follow the money.
    Consequences: If the AGW theory is right and we act to reduce CO2, we may be able to reduce the huge damage AGW might cause. That includes the flooding of major population centers worldwide, and shifting patterns of wet and dry that will cause major food supply disruption.
    If they are wrong, we will use less oil, reducing our dependence on an increasingly rare commodity controlled by often unfriendly nations. We will produce less air pollution. We will lower the trade deficit.
    Do you play Russian Roullette? How many chambers would there have to be in the gun for you to take a chance? If they might be right, we should do what we can.

  • Dougetit

    KentD @41

    No…the factors to consider are facts. “Follow the money” is not a sceintific term. Sorry..

  • Marshall P

    Dougetit @43:

    Relevant facts include human motivations and financial considerations, just as much as they do atmospheric phenomena. Those who attempt to discredit climate change surely don’t confine their attacks to just the science – they consistently attack scientists as being purposefully untruthful and conspiratorial. Why should those who do support the scientific reasoning be prevented from pointing out the very real conflicts of interest on the part of the deniers?

    The history of the last century or so includes plenty of large industries who attempt to deny science showing the negative costs of their actions: Tobacco firms, many pesticide suppliers, makers of CFC refrigerants, and many more. Why should oil and coal companies be any different? They’re looking out for their own pocketbooks, whether or not it benefits the rest of us.

    Of course, the history of the last century *also* shows that when the government finally steps in and regulates products like CFCs or the pollutants that caused acid rain, the replacement with more environmentally friendly technology inevitably occurs faster and costs less than the opponents initially claimed. There’s every reason to believe that green energy will be another such case, resulting ultimately in decreased costs for us. Right now we’re shipping a billion dollars a day to the Middle East to pay for oil–and that’s before you start adding in the cost of our two wars! This is what baffles me the most about those who deny climate change science: even if you don’t accept the role of CO2, why wouldn’t we *still* want to switch to green, domestic power purely out of national security and budgetary interests?

  • Waitin’for the warmth

    @KentD 41:

    Talk about a profit motive. The pro-AGW “science” gang gets paid for doing research into AGW. If there’s no AGW, there’s no grant money. That sounds like an awfully large motive to continue to pump up the AGW alarms to me. Is Al Gore getting any money from AGW based “industry” like carbon credits, h-ll yes, he’s the new carbon ENRON. Does the IPCC chairman (Rajendra Pachauri) make any money from investments in AGW industries, h-ll yes. Why don’t you try following the AGW money and see if there’s no conflict of interest in their positions as well.

    If you look into the background and financial position of one of the leading “deniers”, Stephen McIntyre, you will find he has no axe to grind or any profit motive. Instead he is just asking the AGW promoters to use sound mathematical and scientific principles to demonstrate their conclusions, including opening their data and calculations to independent 3rd party review. But complying with this simple request which is the foundation of all other science, is too hard for the pro-AGW crowd to respond to. What are they afraid of? You say if they might be right we should do what we can, and I agree, but first show me that the science is sound, because if it’s not, billions if not trillions of dollars will be wasted to no effect.

  • Desotojohn

    Global warming should be easy to prove or disprove. I suggest that Global Warming climatologists simply publish their raw data and the algorithms they use to make their case. Show everyone your auditable data and its source. Having papers peer reviewed by fellow Global Warming scientists will never be convincing enough.

  • Eli

    Dougetit@40 is committing a fallacy of relevance: This person argues against not what I actually said, but something else, yet this person thinks nonetheless that that “argument” refuted what I said. In fact, Dougetit is actually committing the same mistake as Guy@33, the same mistake I outlined in my first three comments @18, @31, @35. Dougetit argues that a supposed downward trend over the last ten or so years proves that not only is the overall upward trend in the graphs with starting points being when satellite data started being gathered therefore not an upward trend, but that this therefore shows that CO2 can’t be a causal factor is this overall upward trend. Not only are both of these arguments examples of the illiteracy I outlined in my aforementioned first three comments, the claim that there has been a downward trend – global cooling – for the last ten or so years is itself a false claim, this false claim presumably using 1998 as a starting point, never mind that using some other years around 1998 as a starting point shows a continuing upward trend.

    Read the following article, since it shows how the claim of a downward trend in the data in the last decade or so is a good example of bad mathematics – you can Google the title to read the article:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/26/tech/main5423035.shtml
    Statisticians: “Global Cooling” a Myth
    Claims about Last 10 Years Are Deceptive; Temperatures
    Rise and Fall, But Overall Trend Is Higher

    AP)

    “”If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect,” said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.

    “The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record,” said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. “Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming.”

    Saying there’s a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.

    Identifying a downward trend is a case of “people coming at the data with preconceived notions,” said Peterson, author of the book “Why Did They Do That? An Introduction to Forensic Decision Analysis.”

    Grego produced three charts to show how choosing a starting date can alter perceptions. Using the skeptics’ satellite data beginning in 1998, there is a “mild downward trend,” he said. But doing that is “deceptive.”

    The trend disappears if the analysis starts in 1997. And it trends upward if you begin in 1999, he said.”

  • Eli

    Global warming deniers are trying to get away with claiming that the laws of physics are being broken: Although both the Arctic and Antarctic ice is melting – and this now includes even the East Antarctic ice sheet, they say that not only is the globe not warming, it is cooling. Contradiction.

    Why is the East Antarctic so all-important? It contains roughly 90% of the world’s frozen fresh water. That is, if just this sheet were to melt, the sea level would rise by roughly 200 feet.

    What would it take to melt the whole thing? Probably a couple of thousand ppm CO2 in the atmosphere could do it, since it is thought that at the end of the Jurassic, CO2 levels were at that general level and no permanent ice sheet existed at either end of the globe. Getting to this level of CO2 is quite doable in a very small number of centuries if we put our minds to it.

    But we don’t need to have the whole East Antarctic ice sheet to melt to have a catastrophe. For example, all of the costal regions of Florida and all of Southern Florida are less than 20 feet above sea level. These areas contain the vast majority of Florida’s population. It’s probably true that by the time even just 1/20 of the East Antarctic ice sheet were to melt, much if not most of the other ice sheets throughout the world would have also melted, and the sea level would haven risen by at least 20 feet and bye-bye Florida – and the rest of the world not much above sea level.

    To sum up the following very recent science I cite, most of it published in 2009, some of it in very late 2009, here are the main ideas:

    1. The East Antarctic ice sheet is more unstable and therefore more collapsible than previously thought.
    2. The East Antarctic ice sheet is more easily melted and collapsible by global warming than previously thought.
    3. CO2 causes global warming more easily than was previously thought.
    4. About 15,000 years ago, a partial collapse of the East and West Antarctic ice sheets caused a 70 foot rise in sea level in just a few hundred years.

    And to top all this off, note that CFC’s (chlorofluorocarbons) caused the ozone hole above the Antarctic, where this ozone hole actually kept warming that was happening in the rest of the planet from filtering down all that much into Antarctica. CFC’s were banned, and as they eventually clear out of the atmosphere, the ozone hole will close, and warming in Antarctica will accelerate. And if that were not enough:

    5. CFC’s will be replaced in large quantities in the atmosphere by their replacements, HFC’s (Hydrofluorocarbons ). Problem is, HFC’s, molecule for molecule, are far worse than CO2 in terms of global warming potential – some are thousands of times worse.

    All this very recent science shows that humanity is indeed playing with fire by pumping large and ever larger amounts of greenhouse gas like CO2 and now HFC’s into the atmosphere.

    Here are 10 articles that speak about the studies I mentioned above – you can Google the titles to read the articles:

    (1)

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090622171503.htm
    Beyond Carbon Dioxide: Growing Importance Of Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) In Climate Warming

    (2)

    Cold Case Mystery
    http://www.theage.com.au/national/cold-case-mystery-20100108-lyyq.html

    “ICECAPs surveys are bringing critical new insights into the dynamics of the southern ice, says Dr Tas van Ommen, leader of the Australian Antarctic Division’s ice core group and ICECAP collaborator.

    “Early data shows large areas of ice are resting on bedrock below sea-level,” he says – likening it to a huge basin dipping deep into the earth. It had previously been thought that East Antarctica was mostly grounded on rock above sea-level. So what might happen if warm ocean water gets under the ice? “Depending on the detail of bedrock where the ice meets the ocean, this ‘marine’ base can make the ice more vulnerable to rapid loss as the ice melts back, but also to accelerating ice flow.””

    (3)

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm
    Antarctica Key To Sudden Sea Level Rise In The Past

    “A massive and unusually abrupt rise in sea level about 14,200 years ago was caused by the partial collapse of ice sheets in Antarctica, a new study has shown, in research that solves a mystery scientists have been heatedly debating for more than a decade. In less than 500 years at the end of the last Ice Age, this event caused the Earth’s sea level to rise about 70 feet.”

    (4)

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090121144049.htm
    Much Of Antarctica Is Warming More Than Previously Thought

    (5)

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090814100105.htm
    Antarctic Glacier Thinning At Alarming Rate

    (6)

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091125230727.htm
    NASA Satellites Detect Unexpected Ice Loss in East Antarctica

    (7)

    http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/environments/articles/study-polar-ice-sheets-vulnerable-even-moderate-global-warming
    Study: Polar ice sheets vulnerable to even moderate global warming
    New analysis indicates rising sea levels could be far worse than previously predicted.

    (8)

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/16/AR2009121604191.html?hpid=topnews
    Greater sea-level rise from warming predicted

    (9)

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091220143921.htm
    Global Warming Likely to Be Amplified by
    Slow Changes to Earth Systems, Geologists Say

    “The kinds of increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide taking place today could have a significantly larger effect on global temperatures than previously thought, according to a new study led by Yale University geologists.”

    (10)

    http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/12/06/earth.more.sensitive.carbon.dioxide.previously.thought
    Earth more sensitive to carbon dioxide than previously thought

    “In the long term, the Earth’s temperature may be 30-50% more sensitive to atmospheric carbon dioxide than has previously been estimated, reports a new
    study published in Nature Geoscience this week. The results show that components of the Earth’s climate system that vary over long timescales – such as land-ice and vegetation – have an important effect on this temperature sensitivity, but these factors are often neglected in current climate models.”

  • Steve L

    The faithful are sounding more & more desperate as the climate has cooled in this (12 year long) ‘isolated cooling-weather event’!!

    Just imagine if we were witnessing all time record shattering heat across the hemisphere, animals falling out of trees, record drought instead of snowfall.

    Would this be soberly passed off with a sniff as an isolated weather event? Nothing to do with global warming? Hilarious!

    Why are environmentalists not jumping for joy that global warming never happened after all? Weird! Almost as if it was all for political gain, not saving the planet.

  • Dougetit

    Eli@46

    Eli would have you believe that global temperatures declining since 1998 statistically mean nothing and are cherry picked. Eli cites the AP report as evidence. Eli as well as AP fail to recognize that begining in 1999, the divergence between global thermometer data and satellite data began to range from .33 to .51 deg C per decade. Althogh thermometer data trends up and Satellite data trends down, Eli clings to the false belief that the “Value added” global thermometer data is more accurate, (ie climategate), than two independent satellite datasets. The point is that when we are told by these “so-called” scientists that temperatures are increaseing more rapidly than ever before, we find that they are manipulating “the data with preconceived notions” to bolster thier cliams. Which one do you believe?

  • Steve L

    Those NOAA scientists are good, they can take a temp chart that starts high, ends low and ‘analyze’ warming out of it!

    Only foolish deniers can spin a downward line to mean cooling,
    Just like all this record cold is actually a sign of global warming!

    Thank goodness we have the good folks we can trust at IPCC, CRU, GISS to interpret data correctly for us or we’d all be way off.

  • Kamose

    After reading these comments I think I can finally put into words the idea that has been forming in my mind for some time. It seems to me that global climate change has become a political issue. Solely a political issue. It is as much a scientific issue now as the pundit’s sparring matches on Fox and MSNBC. As a political issue it will not be taken seriously, no meaningful action will be taken, and nothing will change.

    Nothing will change as long as politicians can use the issue for political hay-making and anyone else can use it as an excuse for an online screaming match.

    If its all a big hoax, a lie perpetrated by vested interests, then nothing will happen and life will continue as always. If there is truth to it though, the poor and unlucky will suffer the consequences of our actions. And no one will be able to say we do not most fully and richly deserve those consequences.

  • Marshall P

    @Kamose:

    Indeed. Far too many people want to treat this issue like the worst kind of politics, where pure volume and stubbornness of assertion count more than real evidence.

    Most of the vehement deniers are immune to listening to evidence and really looking at what’s out there. My hope in posting here is that the larger group of folks who are unsure of the science will take the time to learn in a bit more depth about the issues at hand, and see how strong the weight of evidence truly is.

    Desotojohn says: “I suggest that Global Warming climatologists simply publish their raw data and the algorithms they use to make their case.”. In fact the raw data and algorithms are available and have been for a long time, from many sources. See the page I listed already, at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

    Steve L says: “Just imagine if we were witnessing all time record shattering heat across the hemisphere, animals falling out of trees, record drought instead of snowfall.” Well, there’s the years-long drought in California and the rest of the southwest, the even longer drought, record heat waves, and roaring wildfires tearing through Australia, the five-year drought across East Africa that’s leaving millions starving, the gradual melting of every glacier in Alaska, the record heat waves that roasted Texas and the rest of the south last June and July, animals around the world changing migration patterns and shifting their territories away from the equator in response to changing climates… I could go on and on.
    http://www.water.ca.gov/drought/
    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BT0I620091230?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2Fenvironment+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Environment%29
    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLT082635
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6369091
    http://capitalclimate.blogspot.com/2009/06/texas-toast-record-heat-continues.html
    http://www.livescience.com/environment/050621_warming_changes.html

    Isn’t it interesting how those who keep denying the reality of global warming don’t ever seem to have many citations or news reports to back up their positions, compared with those of us who do follow the scientific evidence?

    Look, I desperately wish those folks were right and we didn’t have to deal with this issue. I wish we could all just go on business-as-usual with no worries. But that’s not the world we live in. For the sake of the country I love and the children and grandchildren I want to leave a beautiful world to, we need to do this. It’s not even that much money! We could switch over America to run on entirely green, non-polluting energy sources for probably less money than we’ve already spent on bank bailouts. We could just solve this issue and be done with it in ten years… if we chose to. Why is protecting the environment around us, so that we can enjoy it for years and years to come, now seen as an unworthy goal by so many?

  • http://web.me.com/bunnyman/ Bun Ng

    I have a lot of disagreement with the approaches. It currently falls neatly inside the realm of hatred instead of healthy discourse.

    To begin with, I would find the word denier a very dangerous attribute. It falls neatly into Stage Two of “The Eight Stage Of Genocide” by Genocide Watch, being “Symbolization”, and is moving onto stage Three, being “Dehumanization”. A nature like that breeds hatred on a one-way street and naturally cause all talks to be inflamed and leaves no room for understanding.

    Secondly, I have no interest in doomsday scenario, it also falls neatly inside the area of the occult. When something is not back by evidence, and is supported by statements like “isn’t it obvious?” or “it would be too late to …” That is a typical faith behaviour. A logical conversation cannot ensue. It does not matter one is emotionally attached to an issue, and many things become obvious, one should have the cool head and ask the proponents, when a prediction went South, that, “what went wrong?”, “which set of data was wrong?” or “which gas was picked wrong?”

    Finally, I think following a court of law, skeptics should always be given the benefit of doubt. It rests upon those who have a statement to prove his case, but not the skeptics who actually have found holes. In the true spirit of science, it would require the stake-holder to first produce a theory, and then secondly, conduct experiments (not computer models) or make a prediction which proves the experiment, and finally repeat it over and over again. I would generally use examples for science like launching a rocket into space or turning on a transmitter radio. These examples uses science and mathematics in the area of relativity and quantum mechanics, which are beyond the native-human-senses Newtonian physics universal that humans could directly comprehend, and yet they are accurate every single time; otherwise, scientists would be brought in to find out what went wrong (and naturally: face the skeptics with full honesty) or any individual operation/machinery would not be accepted. That is the spirit of science. If a “messiah” hypothesis does not fall in line with this kind of practice, I would not call that science.

    I would finally ask many of those who have made statements East and West, that, what kind of science is it that would look at two charts, find them alike, and say, “there you go: the cause”? Haven’t we put enough innocent people behind bar (for, may be, life) based on the same “science”?

  • Steve L

    Marshall, you make my point exactly.

    You reference droughts in the U.S. southwest & East Africa etc (which I’m pretty sure were both deserts long before the invention of SUV’s) as evidence of global warming, but widespread record cold is not by the same token evidence to the contrary?

    We are seeing really historic record cold and snow over a large portion of the planet, but I do not claim this to be evidence of a new ice age, it’s not. And wildfires and droughts are not evidence of dangerous anthropogenic global warming either. Wildfires in particular are actually a natural healthy part of the ecosystem.

    There is no mathematical, or experimental, or observational empirical evidence to back up dangerous AGW.

    Only faith in unverified computer sims and a general intuition that anything we humans do MUST be bad for the planet.

    This is why, like astrology, or holistic medicine, scientific support for the theory drops off precipitously outside of ‘climatology’

  • John

    Actually, I recall reading that using warm water to make
    ice cubes is faster than cold water!
    So, if it’s colder than normal, that doesnt disprove GW,
    but if it’s hotter, then that proves GW!
    that does NOT really make sense!

  • Doug

    The startling lack of moderation and propensity for hyperbole from both sides has me turned off to the whole thing. Scientists want to conflate the findings so they can get more money, deniers want to denigrate the findings because not making changes gets them more money. I’m all for the protection of the environment, we don’t do it nearly enough and not nearly strong enough, but we should not lie and blatantly alter or misinterpret findings to do that.

  • Tom

    I can’t understand why those who don’t believe in climate warming recycle. Nor can I figure out why they haven’t torn the catalytic converters from thier cars.
    Me? I’ve stopped recycling. Why should I do it when China doesn’t? And the catalytic converter? Gone. China doesn’t require it…neither do I. My gas milage is awesome.
    Bset of luck wasting your time throwing pies at each other. In the mean time, I’ll be saving money and polluting at will.

  • Steve L

    My wife makes me recycle, our refrigerator is full of costly products with messages and the poor Dog and Cat are on ‘organic’ food!

    Although apparently they are helping lower sea levels!

    I didn’t know you could increase mpg removing the Cat-converter-
    I might try that and I’ll be less bitter about all the expensive eco-crap!

  • Daniel J. Andrews

    The startling lack of moderation and propensity for hyperbole from both sides has me turned off to the whole thing. Scientists want to conflate the findings so they can get more money…

    If you want less hyperbole, Doug, read the IPCC reports and don’t read blog comments. The IPCC reports are conservative in their estimates. If you don’t have the background to understand how science operates or the knowledge to discern what is hyperbole and what is not, then you need to do some background reading (try Spencer Weart’s The Discovery of Global Warming: A History–it is online and an excellent start to a better understanding of the science).

    but we should not lie and blatantly alter or misinterpret findings to do that.

    Completely agree! That is why we use peer-reviewed journals as a guide to reliability. Anyone submitting to a journal has to pass the expert scrutiny of two or three of their peers. Once in the journal, then it is subjected to expert scrutiny of the community. Any scientists who lies, or blatantly alters their findings are exposed very quickly, and their credibility is lost–and in science, losing your credibility is tantamount to career suicide. To a scientist credibility is more valuable than currency.

    Despite best efforts though sometimes findings are misinterpreted. The authors may then have to correct their paper. In general, this doesn’t affect credibility because everyone makes mistakes and people are more interested in making the best argument possible, and appreciate (in the long-run :-) ) the criticism.

    This model, however, is not how sites like Watts Up With That and others operate. They are the ones who lie, alter the findings, blatantly misinterpret things. Their dishonesty is stunning, and anyone with basic knowledge who spends time looking at “skeptical” sites can’t help but be aware these folks are really very ignorant and are not interested in being educated. A number of times they will take a paper and claim it says the opposite of what the paper really says–something which annoys the author immensely. (btw, latest example is on how CO2 levels haven’t changed in 160 years, something that the author–Knorr–wasn’t saying at all. That means they’re either lying or are so scientifically ignorant they can’t even tell the difference between concentration and ratios–either way, why would anyone trust them?).

    While many are making this a political issue, it is not. It is a lot of physics and chemistry, and there is no reason to assume our knowledge of these disciplines is suddenly all wrong when they are applied to climate. The fact that ‘skeptics’ have to resort to politics, lies and slanderous accusations against scientists indicates they don’t have the science to back their assertions…if they did, they’d publish** their evidence, and they don’t.

    In short, science works. The same scientific process that brings us airplanes, computers, and the amenities of modern age are the same processes that are at work in figuring out how and why climate is changing.

    **(and yes, skeptics can publish…Lindzen and Choi just published, were shown their mistakes, acknowledged their mistakes, and will probably come back with a better paper. Ideally, the first reviewers should have spotted these mistakes giving Lindzen and Choi a chance to present a better paper the first time which they would have preferred, but just because the system works, does not mean it is perfect…it is just far better than any other options available, such as blogs that contradict mainline science simply because the science is inconvenient to a particular ideology, political or religious.

  • dasnd12

    Although i have not been convinced one way or the other on this subject….is the move toward greener energy such a bad idea that everyone should be all up in arms about it? Doesnt everyone want the air we breath to be cleaner? The changes that are being made all over the world can only have a positive impact on air pollution….not sure what the downside is with that.

  • Steve L

    dasnd12,

    Co2 is not dirty, it’s a naturally occuring nutrient that plants thrive on.
    You can’t get much greener and cleaner than Co2. Taxing it will create a lot of wealth and power for Governments at the expense of free market productivity. That’s the downside.

    & that’s why it is a purely political argument, not a scientific one.

    It’s effect on climate is minimal, eg Ordovician ice age =4400 ppm Co2

  • Steve L

    Daniel “The same scientific process that brings us airplanes, computers, and the amenities of modern age”

    No climatology is the kind of ‘science’ that brought us astrology, Big Foot and a geocentric solar system.

    Real science has a few unmistakble quaint old fashioned principles like

    accurate measurement
    repeatable experiments displaying predictive ability
    and empirical observations

    climatology has computer sims, politics, and trillions of $ of incentive.

  • dasnd12

    Steve –

    So your telling me coal burning power plants and gasoline burning vehicles is not pollution huh?? I never once mentioned CO2 in my statement. What i did say is that the GW activists are pushing for a greener society – that is – moving away from fossil fuels that pollute the environment and “may” be causing climate change.

    not sure about you…but i could do without the smog….

    Now i dont want to get into a political discussion about the CO2 cap and trade proposal or any of that. I just wanted to state that the move toward renewable engery can only have a positive impact on the environment.

  • Steve L

    Yes- you asked what everyone is so up in arms about.

    As you know global warming, which this article and thread is about, is supposed to be all about Co2. People, including 10’s of thousands of scientists are up in arms because there is no scientific evidence to link Co2 with dangerous global warming.

    Yes cars do emit some actual pollutants but in very small quantities, most U.S. cities are now far cleaner than they were a few decades ago, you never really see smog in Chicago for example which is nice, but at the expense of losing most of their industry. But yes I’d agree there are real environmental problems in the world that should be addressed instead of taxing Co2.

  • Steve L

    ‘the move toward renewable energy can only have a positive impact on the environment’

    Depends what kind, again I don’t want to put words in your mouth- and I think nuclear is a good idea

    But I’m not sure if thousands of turbines and the associated miles of transmission lines and access roads littering the countryside could be considered a positive impact.

    But the economic impact is undisputed, economically, solar and wind have a fraction of the efficiency of coal/oil/gas

  • Dougetit

    Daniel J. Andrews @ Said:

    “In short, science works. The same scientific process that brings us airplanes, computers, and the amenities of modern age are the same processes that are at work in figuring out how and why climate is changing.”

    Could this science have also brought us the Satellite technology for recording temperatures that NASA, NOAA and CRU do NOT use because the data is harder to manipulate to their pre-determined outcome?

    Just the facts.

  • JJ

    I’d also like to add that the political ramifications will cost us billions that we simply do not have to spend at this time. It will also increase taxes on the American public for years to come and has the potential to greatly harm our economy. Now, is all of this worth it when you take into account the political agenda underlying the current “climate change” debate? The sheer fact that it was called “global warming” before “climate change” is evidence enough that this debate is more political than scientific in nature. Realistically, meteorologists screw up weather forecasts regularly because it’s all based on models and projections, not hard data. Climatology is much more complex and based upon the same science. Ask yourself, is it possible to predict the Earth’s climate for say the next 10, 50, 100 years? Meteorologists can only accurately predict weather within 48 to 72 hours. Predicting climate seems like a total crap shoot in this respect. Climatologists already can’t account for the recent cooling trends (so called “climate gate”). They also argue stats, but as any good mathematician knows, stats are quite easy to manipulate in order to support a hypothesis. It happens in the medical/drug industry all the time, which is why we often hear of contradictory medical studies in the news (however, not all of them are intentional). Maybe if we had climate data dating back 1,000 years, our current trends would prove statistically insignificant since data is relative to the sample size. Along with the political and economical ramifications riding on the climate data, I have little faith in it’s credibility at this point. The debate is exhausting and I doubt anything will come of it (see Copenhagen 2009), similar to theoretical physics (although it is quite interesting).

  • Steve L

    JJ- The Obama admin’s own estimate is nearly a Trillion $ in extra ‘revenue’ from green taxes over the next 10 years to be redistributed to various interests and supporters. Similar taxes are proposed worldwide

    There is more than enough money, power, politics, ideology for the global warming movement to exist without a scrap of scientific evidence.

    I would be amazed if no-one was trying to control Co2 for profit, it’s a no-brainer.

    I agree- climate forecasting really is like weather forcasting in terms of dealing with inherent variability- only more so and with an even worse track record.

  • mathlete

    My feeling is if the government was truly concerned about global warming, we would be building more nuclear plants and using more natural gas. Solar and wind power aren’t nearly as cost effective or efficient as nuclear power. Installing solar panels and wind turbines are very expensive and yield little in terms of savings and efficiency over conventional methods of power (coal). It would take decades to recover the costs needed to convert to such systems and they’re not nearly as efficient as nuclear power. Granted, converting to nuclear power is very expensive, but will pay off greatly for the next few decades with nearly 0 emissions. Costs can be recovered much faster than wind or solar. Furthermore, natural gas is abundant and readily available for use in many industries with minimal changes to technology. Converting cars or power plants to natural gas is fairly simple and tons more efficient than fossil fuels. The current debate is clearly more focused on money and politics than actually curbing CO2.

  • Daniel J. Andrews

    In reference to my previous comment about denialist sites who lie, misrepresent and twist an author’s words to mean something different from what they actually say, see this new article on how Watts and others are completely misrepresenting Dr. Latif’s work….and that is Dr. Latif’s opinion–which seems pretty solid given it’s his work they’re misinterpreting.

    climateprogress.org/2010/01/11/foxnews-wattsupwiththat-climatedepot-daily-mail-article-on-global-cooling-mojib-latif/#more-17334

    When science supports you, you publish in journals. When the science doesn’t support you, you just make things up. Making things up is very common on the “skeptic” sites. Based on past performances I’m sure Watts will publish a retraction and apologize to Dr. Latif any time now…….

    …..

    hmm, no crickets chirping this time…seems they starved to death while waiting

  • Daniel J. Andrews

    Dougetit @67. Citation please. Where did you find this nonsense? Why don’t you check NASA, NOAA and CRU to see what the scientists actually do with this data. I’d provide you the links to each of those sites, but no doubt you know exactly where to find them seeing as how you know the acronyms. It’s not like you just copied and pasted a denialist talking point without understanding it or checking it.

    As I said above, when science doesn’t support you, you just make things up, and that comment of yours is a wonderful example of the mentality of denialists (skeptics don’t make things up, btw, which is why we call the fabricators denialists).

    Your math and science ignorance is showing. If they were going to manipulate satellite temp data it wouldn’t be any harder than manipulating ground-based temp data….all it takes is the same fancy math—and a global conspiracy among climatologists, statisticians, mathematicians, physicists and various space industry scientists to keep the secret. sigh–Dunning-Kruger incarnate.

  • esimmons682

    Before anyone forms an opinion on global warming, I suggest reading James Hansen’s book titled “The Storms of my Grandchildren”. I was on the fence. I am not anymore.

  • Brian Too

    I’ve posted before on these matters and have decided not to be completely repetitious today.

    However consider this. Most of the action needed to combat Climate Change makes sense, independent of the outcome of the Climate Change debate.

    Coal is highly polluting. Industry would have us believe that “clean coal” is a reality, but it hasn’t even been demonstrated at scale yet. Then consider that all those pollutants, scrubbed out of the stacks of those yet-to-be-built clean coal plants, have to be stored somewhere.

    Oil and gas are a declining resource, though less polluting than coal. The bigger problem with oil and gas is that we ship vast sums of money to the Middle East which isn’t exactly a model of stability and friendliness. Some of that money is then used to commit violence against us. Not a virtuous cycle to say the least.

    Nuclear frankly still has an image problem. There’s no long-term storage facility for the spent fuel. On-site storage of the high level waste just seems like a lame stop-gap measure that’s going to come back to haunt us some day. In spite of this I predict that nuclear will form a larger part of the future energy picture.

    Now if you up the insulation on your home, and it’s both warmer and less costly to heat, where’s the downside to that? The only difficulty is in spending the money to insulate it. Well, that’s life. You invest in things according to their value to you.

    At the societal level, investing in savings and efficiency technologies mean that all of the above noted problems, get smaller. Smaller is better for problems.

    Finally, look at the “opportunity risk” of failing to make the positive choice. You’re going to send that money (partly and indirectly, but still) to the Middle East.

    Your choice.

  • mathlete

    I agree Brian, and I think the majority of Americans would agree. However, the problem is the proposed plan to cap and tax emissions. Taxing emissions doesn’t keep CO2 out of the atmosphere, it just feeds big government with tax dollars and puts greater financial burden on the American public and the economy. Any additional expenses incurred by a company will inevitably be passed to the consumer. Those truly concerned about curbing carbon emissions should seek out more effective options that don’t involve money, but money and politics seem to be at the heart of the debate. As I stated earlier, nuclear power is the answer and can be funded by the private sector. It provides jobs, doesn’t require raising taxes, and is the most efficient source of power in the world.

  • Dougetit

    Daniel J. Andrews @72

    I won’t berate you or call you names but ask you how two totally independent satellite resources come up with near identical results can be called “made up“? Anyone is free to enter the UAH Satellite dataset http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt and the RSS Satellite dataset ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_1.txt starting with the divergence date in January 1998 into any graphing program http://www.padowan.dk/graph/ with the function f(x) = a*x+b, where a and b are constants calculated so the line is the best fit to the point series. The trendline is calculated so the sum of squares (SSQ) S(yi-f(xi))^2 will be as small as possible.

    Then enter the “homogeneity” adjusted NASA thermometer dataset ala James Hansen, (who in 1988 claimed that New York streets would be under water as early as 2008), at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt After your homework is complete, you can hilariously see that the NASA thermometer based trend is in total contrast to both satellite trends. NASA thermometer data trends UP, Both Satellite datasets trend DOWN. 1998 is picked because this is where the major divergence in TRENDS began. As Trenberth said “…It’s a travesty that we can’t account for the lack of warming…” None of their models had or could predict this cooling trend.

    NASA claims accuracy of 5/100 degree C accuracy for their thermometer dataset though I’ve found it unreliable as they change/update the numbers requiring monthly total re-entry. Satellite accuracy is at 3/100 deg C without the numerous changes. So why in heavens name do we even trust or need the less accurate thermometer record? If all we had were global satellite records, “AGW” would probably never have entered the English lexicon.

    NASA is now facing the same legal action which CRU was to face with FOIA requests to release the raw backup data. Does refusing to release raw data for ‘peer review” seem like good scientific method to you? Hmm? Makes you wonder.

    Now Daniel, I have laid out the facts, or as you say “citation”, for you, and, in fairness, not to show YOUR “math and science ignorance”, would you be so kind as to provide me with the CRU global Land and Ocean temperature anomaly for October 2009? Oops…did they take down their fraudulent evidence from prying eyes? Nothing to hide there at CRU… EH?

    PS. No fair making up the number. I captured their data set before they blocked it in late November in the days following crimategate. I’ll be waiting… :)
    **** ****
    hmm, no crickets chirping this time…seems they starved to death while waiting

  • Eli

    Kamose @52 says that the global warming has become a political issue. That’s right: It’s a political issue just as evolution is a political issue. Those who argue against global warming seem to be almost entirely the same set of people who argue against evolution. And they do so using the same type of general classes of attempted argument. One such class: They demonize the specific peer-reviewed published science in question, and they demonize the scientists of that specific science in question, claiming that there is some grand conspiracy to bring about some evil that must be fought against. All we can do in response to this class of attempted argument is try to educate the public as to what good scientific thinking is and is not, as to what all the relevant peer-reviewed science actually says and does not say, that peer-reviewed science is the best that humanity has in trying get away from the witch doctor days and get to finding out what the facts really are about the physical world, and that the specific science and scientists in question are not out to get us. Yes, there have been scientists in the past with respect to evolution and now scientists with respect to climatology that have misbehaved, but although such behavior feeds the paranoia of the conspiracy theorists, all we can do in response to such misbehavior is again try to educate the public as I just mentioned.

    Dougetit @50 is still committing the same examples of mathematical/scientific illiteracy I talked about @47, these examples being the same ones that essentially all global warming deniers make, the same ones I outlined @18, @31, and @35. The main example is that if a graph describes a relationship of cause and effect, then that relationship HAS TO exist per a one-to-one function – the graphs that result have to pass the horizontal line test – or at least more generally the relationship has to exist per a monotonic function. Specifically, these global warming deniers implicitly argue that if there is any downturn in a graph that is supposed to describe a relationship of cause and effect between CO2 in the atmosphere and global warming, then that graph cannot be showing any such cause and effect relationship, which is why they are so insistent in trying to get people to believe that there has been recent global cooling – even though there has not been recent global cooling. But it does not even matter if there has been recent global cooling, since this implicit argument of theirs is in direct contradiction to the brute fact that cause and effect relationships in nature do not have to exist per a one-to-one or monotonic function. (This is a brute fact by observation – we observe in nature many cause and effect relationships that do not exist per either function type.)

    And even if we were to grant that satellite temperature data and only satellite temperature data were valid, we would still not see recent global cooling. The main reason we would not see cooling is this: Global warming deniers using the top of a very unusually tall spike at year 1998 as THE ONE AND ONLY starting point to try to argue recent global cooling is much more mathematically and scientifically invalid and much more intellectually dishonest than anything that a couple of climate scientists have actually done. (This is what I essentially pointed out @47 with a citation, itself having many citations.)

    That this is scientifically invalid and intellectually dishonest is made all the more clear @48, where I cite 10 articles, almost all of which are about very recently published science (none of which need that “fraudulent” data that global warming deniers keep saying exist). To sum up: Information from satellites, information that global warming deniers say is the one and only type they say they trust, shows that the ice all over the world – INCLUDING that East Antarctic ice sheet that was not supposed to be melting and that we MOST ESPECIALLY cannot afford to see melting – is melting before our very (satellite) eyes. That East Antarctic ice sheet has been melting since 2006. (We cannot afford to see the East Antarctic ice sheet melting because that one ice sheet contains as much as 90% of the world’s frozen fresh water. All of it melting would mean a sea level rise of 200 feet.) This melting correlates well with the other newly published information that shows that Antarctic ice sheets melt more easily in response to global warming than was previously thought, CO2 causes global warming more easily than was previously thought, and the East Antarctic ice sheet is more unstable than was previously thought. All this new science now exists in the context of a study published several years ago that showed that that the collapse of unstable Antarctic ice sheets roughly 15,000 years ago caused a sea level rise of 70 feet in only a few hundred years. (Any collapse of any part of the East Antarctic ice sheet would be catastrophic, since, for instance, all of coastal Florida all around the state for 30 miles inland and all of southern Florida, all of which holds the vast majority of Florida’s population, is less than 20 feet above sea level.)

    Steve L @55 and @65 says that CO2 has nothing to do with any global warming. In addition to all the peer-reviewed science I cited @48, let’s see what the undeniable scientific facts really are. Here are 8 more articles, including 7 more peer-reviewed scientific studies quite relevant to the claim that CO2 has nothing to do with global warming (I include many parts of some of the articles since I think them important enough to present explicitly here):

    (1)

    http://www.philly.com/inquirer/magazine/79196657.html?viewAll=y
    Climate change, minus the hot air
    What scientists know – “what cannot be denied” – about global warming, carbon dioxide, the greenhouse effect.

    “Is the Earth really getting warmer or were measurements faked?

    Estimates of global temperatures have been the subject of a recent flap dubbed “climategate.” A group of hacked e-mails cast doubt over one influential group in England.

    The most serious accusations seem to relate to data and analysis from the 1980s that were destroyed or lost.

    Meanwhile, other groups tracking temperatures have noted a rise over the 20th century.

    But these may not even represent the most critical evidence, said Peter Pilewskie, an atmospheric physicist at the University of Colorado. “Thermodynamically, global average temperature has almost no meaning,” he said. If the extra carbon from human activity is absorbing more energy and adding kinetic energy to the atmosphere, this could manifest itself with complicated regional effects, he said.

    “If you want to see climate change, look no further than the Arctic,” he said, where sea ice is melting even faster than predicted by some of the most dire
    forecasts. “That can’t be denied.”

    [My note: As I said above, the science just published in late 2009 I cited @48 shows that even the East Antarctic ice sheet has been melting since 2006. By the laws of physics, it is physically impossible to have all this ice all over the world that was not melting before to be melting now and have the globe not have warmed to the point to cause it to start melting.]

    How do we know humans are to blame?

    “It’s a process of elimination,” said Pilewskie, who studies changes in the sun. Nothing unusual has been going on with the sun in the last 30 years, he said. Others have noted that nothing unusual is occurring with volcanoes. The one thing we know has changed is the CO2 component of the atmosphere – it’s risen about 30 percent since the start of the industrial revolution.

    “What cannot be denied,” he said, “is that there has been an increase in CO2 and this increases the infrared opacity of the atmosphere and therefore increases the atmospheric greenhouse effect.”

    Do carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases cause warming on other planets?

    Yes, said David Grinspoon, a planetary scientist and curator of astrobiology at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science. The greenhouse effect is essential for understanding Venus and Mars.

    “On the most basic level, planetary science shows that the greenhouse effect is real and that global change is real,” he said. “If we were wrong about the basic physics of carbon dioxide greenhouse warming, we would not be able to predict surface temperatures of Venus and Mars.”

    Both of our neighboring planets, he said, have gone through catastrophic climate shifts thanks to changes in the greenhouse effect.

    Various lines of evidence suggest Venus and Mars were more temperate in the past, but Mars lost most of its atmosphere, while Venus’ atmosphere thickened through what’s called a runaway greenhouse effect. Today Venus’ surface is hot enough to melt lead.”

    [My note: Some who claim that CO2 has nothing to do with global warming say that changes in the sun did it. The recent science says changes in the sun did not do it. Here are 3 studies:]

    (2)

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060914095559.htm
    Changes In Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming

    (3)

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080512120523.htm
    Solar Variability: Striking A Balance With Climate Change

    (4)

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090511122425.htm
    Changes In The Sun Are Not Causing Global Warming, New Study Shows

    [My note: Some who claim that CO2 has nothing to do with global warming say that cosmic rays did it. The recent science says cosmic rays did not do it. Here are 3 studies:]

    (5)

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080403083932.htm
    Climate Change Is Not Caused By Cosmic Rays, According To New Research

    (6)

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217075138.htm
    Cosmic Rays Do Not Explain Global Warming, Study Finds

    (7)

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090801095810.htm
    Cosmic Ray Decreases Affect Atmospheric Aerosols And Clouds

    [My note: Some who claim that CO2 has nothing to do with global warming are talking about a new study. But already, some are pointing out problems with that study, which is mainly that one of its conclusions, that CO2 did not cause global warming thus far, is a conclusion that does not follow from its own data. Here is one such report on its problems:]

    (8)

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Could-CFCs-be-causing-global-warming.html
    Could CFCs be causing global warming?

    “A new paper Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces: Implications for atmospheric ozone depletion (Lu 2009) examines the link between CFCs, cosmic rays and global warming. The bulk of the paper concentrates on the link between cosmic rays and depletion of ozone in the Arctic and Antarctic regions. This is interesting work that warrants a closer look (perhaps the subject of a future post) and the role of cosmic rays on climate are address elsewhere. However, the strongest statement is found towards the end of the paper, stating that “these data strongly indicate that global temperature has been dominantly controlled by the level of CFCs, modulated by the cosmic ray-driven ozone depletion over the past century.” Lu is saying that the increased greenhouse effect from CFCs is the main contributor to global warming in recent decades. What is this based on?

    The IPCC AR4 estimate that the radiative forcing from CFCs is 0.33 W/m2. This is about 13% of the total radiative forcing from increased greenhouse gases (with carbon dioxide being the main contributor). However, Lu dismisses this value, arguing that CFC radiative forcing is calculated from climate models and not from direct observations. To examine the potential relationship between temperature and CFCs, Lu compares global temperature to Equivalent Effective
    Stratospheric Chlorine (EESC), a measure of atmospheric CFCs. There is no EESC data before 1970 so the data is extrapolated backwards assuming an identical growth rate until EESC levels hit 0 in the 1940s.

    Lu argues that the correlation between global temperature and CFCs is evidence that CFCs have been the dominant driver of climate over the past century. While there were large short-term fluctuations between 1850 to 1950, global temperature did not show significant overall rise over this period when
    CO2 was rising. Temperatures started increasing around 1950, when EESC levels started to become significant. Finally, EESC peaked around 2000 and has fallen in the last few years while the HadCRUT3 temperature record shows cooling in the same period. Based on this correlation, Lu concludes that “these data strongly indicate that global temperature has been dominantly controlled by the level of CFCs… over the past century”.

    There are several problems with this analysis. The notion that global cooling has been occuring over the last few years is not borne out when one peruses the full range of empirical data. Lu uses HadCRUT data which does not cover the entire globe – the regions where most warming has occurred are excluded from the HadCRUT record. Consequently, HadCRUT underestimates recent warming. When one considers the energy building in the entire climate system (especially the
    oceans where most heat resides), we see that the planet is still accumulating heat through to 2009 (Murphy 2009, von Schuckmann 2009). In recent years while the radiative forcing from CFCs was falling, the planet has still been in positive energy balance.

    The physics of how CFCs might impose such a strong radiative forcing are not addressed. Lu mentions that the radiative forcing from CFCs haven’t been directly measured, then moves onto statistical correlations. In fact, the greenhouse effect from CFCs have been quantified from surface observations of the infrared radiation spectrum (Evans 2006). The observed results are broadly consistent with model predictions of greenhouse forcing (although observations show slightly higher forcing than model results). The proportion of CFC forcing
    compared to total greenhouse forcing is still around 14%, a close match to the IPCC estimate of 13%.

    So we see that CFCs play only a small part in driving global temperatures. Unfortunately, this means that the recent drop in CFC levels will only have a small impact on global temperatures (if only it could be that easy). Of more concern is the increasing radiative forcing from CO2. The infrared spectrum analysis in Evans 2006 measures the extra heat trapped by rising carbon dioxide, finding a CO2 radiative forcing of 2.1 W/m2 (again slightly higher than model predictions). This begs the question to those that argue that CFC (or any other mechanism) is meant to be causing global warming. If so, what’s happening to all the heat trapped by CO2?”

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/
    Skeptical Science

    “Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge and improve their understanding. Yet this isn’t what happens in global warming skepticism. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet eagerly, even blindly embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog or study that refutes global warming.

    So this website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?”

  • esimmons682

    Brian Too and Mathlete,

    You both sound like intelligent people. James Hansen, in his book “The Storms of my Grandchildren”, addresses both of your concerns, including spent nuclear waste and money/politics. I urge everyone who reads this to read his book. Unless you are a climate scientist, the first seven chapters are hard reading. However, it is worth reading and re-reading until you understand the subject matter. He may be the foremost authority on global warming. Not only does he recognize the problem, he also purposes solutions.

  • badnicolez

    @Brian Too #74: Do you know why there is no long-term storage solution for nuclear? Because Obama just cancelled Yucca Mountain after $13B was spent and now we really have no long-term solution for the waste already out there or yet to be created.

    And yes, people should be incentivized to conserve by doing things like insulating their homes, but not forced to do so if they choose to spend their money elsewhere. It is still a free country, but not for long if the AGWers get their way.

    Many of us who don’t buy into the AGW hype also believe we should be drilling and exploring our natural resources (developing clean coal, drilling for oil and gas) here at home so that we don’t have to send our energy dollars overseas, but we all know who won’t let that happen. I am a big proponent of nuclear power, but the left lacks the political willpower to change that image for some reason, even though it is likely our best, most efficient and least polluting option. They could easily do so if they really wanted.

  • Steve L

    It’s an uncanny pattern that the faithful like Daniel are always so adept at spewing insults and accusations of dishonesty and stupidity at everyone (including the 10’s of thousands of qualified scientists) who dare to disagree with Al Gore, other politicians, journalists, and Leonardo Di Caprio.

    I don’t think you are stupid, or a liar Daniel, passion is good but anger does not lead to objective thinking.

    Most skeptics are, like yourself, intelligent well meaning people who love the environment as much as anyone, and do not want to see real environmental issues overlooked at the expense of a political power grab.

    Consider that real science enjoys support across all fields of science
    even if there is some popular dissent, i.e. evolution, big bang, age of the Earth

    soft/junk science like astrology, holistic medicine or climatology sees support drop off precipitously outside it’s own self supporting field.

  • Eli

    Dougetit @50 and many others are still committing the same mistakes I talked about @47, these examples being the same ones that essentially all global warming deniers make, the same ones I outlined @18, @31, and @35. One big mistake they make is that if a graph describes a relationship of cause and effect, then that relationship has to exist per a one-to-one function – the graphs that result have to pass the horizontal line test – or at least more generally the relationship has to exist per a monotonic function. Specifically, these global warming deniers implicitly argue that if there is any downturn in a graph that is supposed to describe a relationship of cause and effect between CO2 in the atmosphere and global warming, then that graph cannot be showing any such cause and effect relationship, which is why they are so insistent in trying to get people to believe that there has been recent global cooling – even though there has not been recent global cooling. But it does not even matter if there has been recent global cooling, since this implicit argument of theirs is in direct contradiction to the brute fact that cause and effect relationships in nature do not have to exist per a one-to-one or monotonic function. (This is a brute fact by observation – we observe in nature many cause and effect relationships that do not exist per either function type.)

    And even if we were to grant that satellite temperature data and only satellite temperature data were valid, we would still not see recent global cooling. The main reason we would not see cooling is this: Global warming deniers using the top of a very unusually tall spike at year 1998 as THE ONE AND ONLY starting point to try to argue recent global cooling is mathematically and scientifically invalid. (This is what I essentially pointed out @47 with a citation, itself having many citations.)

    That this is scientifically invalid is made all the more clear @48, where I cite 10 articles, almost all of which are about very recently published science (none of which need that “fraudulent” data that global warming deniers keep saying exist). To sum up: Information from satellites, information that global warming deniers say is the one and only type they say they trust, shows that the ice all over the world – INCLUDING that East Antarctic ice sheet that was not supposed to be melting and that we MOST ESPECIALLY cannot afford to see melting – is melting before our very (satellite) eyes. That East Antarctic ice sheet has been melting since 2006. (We cannot afford to see the East Antarctic ice sheet melting because that one ice sheet contains as much as 90% of the world’s frozen fresh water. All of it melting would mean a sea level rise of 200 feet.) This melting correlates well with the other newly published information that shows that Antarctic ice sheets melt more easily in response to global warming than was previously thought, CO2 causes global warming more easily than was previously thought, and the East Antarctic ice sheet is more unstable than was previously thought. All this new science now exists in the context of a study published several years ago that showed that that the collapse of unstable Antarctic ice sheets roughly 15,000 years ago caused a sea level rise of 70 feet in only a few hundred years. (Any collapse of any part of the East Antarctic ice sheet would be catastrophic, since, for instance, all of coastal Florida all around the state for 30 miles inland and all of southern Florida, all of which holds the vast majority of Florida’s population, is less than 20 feet above sea level.)

    Steve L @55 and @65 says that CO2 has nothing to do with any global warming. In addition to all the peer-reviewed science I cited @48, let’s see what the undeniable scientific facts really are. Here are 8 more articles, including 7 more peer-reviewed scientific studies quite relevant to the claim that CO2 has nothing to do with global warming (I include many parts of some of the articles since I think them important enough to present explicitly here):

    (1)

    http://www.philly.com/inquirer/magazine/79196657.html?viewAll=y
    Climate change, minus the hot air
    What scientists know – “what cannot be denied” – about global warming, carbon dioxide, the greenhouse effect.

    “Is the Earth really getting warmer or were measurements faked?

    Estimates of global temperatures have been the subject of a recent flap dubbed “climategate.” A group of hacked e-mails cast doubt over one influential group in England.

    The most serious accusations seem to relate to data and analysis from the 1980s that were destroyed or lost.

    Meanwhile, other groups tracking temperatures have noted a rise over the 20th century.

    But these may not even represent the most critical evidence, said Peter Pilewskie, an atmospheric physicist at the University of Colorado. “Thermodynamically, global average temperature has almost no meaning,” he said. If the extra carbon from human activity is absorbing more energy and adding kinetic energy to the atmosphere, this could manifest itself with complicated regional effects, he said.

    “If you want to see climate change, look no further than the Arctic,” he said, where sea ice is melting even faster than predicted by some of the most dire
    forecasts. “That can’t be denied.”

    [My note: As I said above, the science just published in late 2009 I cited @48 shows that even the East Antarctic ice sheet has been melting since 2006. By the laws of physics, it is physically impossible to have all this ice all over the world that was not melting before to be melting now and have the globe not have warmed to the point to cause it to start melting.]

    How do we know humans are to blame?

    “It’s a process of elimination,” said Pilewskie, who studies changes in the sun. Nothing unusual has been going on with the sun in the last 30 years, he said. Others have noted that nothing unusual is occurring with volcanoes. The one thing we know has changed is the CO2 component of the atmosphere – it’s risen about 30 percent since the start of the industrial revolution.

    “What cannot be denied,” he said, “is that there has been an increase in CO2 and this increases the infrared opacity of the atmosphere and therefore increases the atmospheric greenhouse effect.”

    Do carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases cause warming on other planets?

    Yes, said David Grinspoon, a planetary scientist and curator of astrobiology at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science. The greenhouse effect is essential for understanding Venus and Mars.

    “On the most basic level, planetary science shows that the greenhouse effect is real and that global change is real,” he said. “If we were wrong about the basic physics of carbon dioxide greenhouse warming, we would not be able to predict surface temperatures of Venus and Mars.”

    Both of our neighboring planets, he said, have gone through catastrophic climate shifts thanks to changes in the greenhouse effect.

    Various lines of evidence suggest Venus and Mars were more temperate in the past, but Mars lost most of its atmosphere, while Venus’ atmosphere thickened through what’s called a runaway greenhouse effect. Today Venus’ surface is hot enough to melt lead.”

    [My note: Some who claim that CO2 has nothing to do with global warming say that changes in the sun did it. The recent science says changes in the sun did not do it. Here are 3 studies:]

    (2)

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060914095559.htm
    Changes In Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming

    (3)

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080512120523.htm
    Solar Variability: Striking A Balance With Climate Change

    (4)

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090511122425.htm
    Changes In The Sun Are Not Causing Global Warming, New Study Shows

    [My note: Some who claim that CO2 has nothing to do with global warming say that cosmic rays did it. The recent science says cosmic rays did not do it. Here are 3 studies:]

    (5)

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080403083932.htm
    Climate Change Is Not Caused By Cosmic Rays, According To New Research

    (6)

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217075138.htm
    Cosmic Rays Do Not Explain Global Warming, Study Finds

    (7)

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090801095810.htm
    Cosmic Ray Decreases Affect Atmospheric Aerosols And Clouds

    [My note: Some who claim that CO2 has nothing to do with global warming are talking about a new study. But already, some are pointing out problems with that study, which is mainly that one of its conclusions, that CO2 did not cause global warming thus far, is a conclusion that does not follow from its own data. Here is one such report on its problems:]

    (8)

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Could-CFCs-be-causing-global-warming.html
    Could CFCs be causing global warming?

    “A new paper Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces: Implications for atmospheric ozone depletion (Lu 2009) examines the link between CFCs, cosmic rays and global warming. The bulk of the paper concentrates on the link between cosmic rays and depletion of ozone in the Arctic and Antarctic regions. This is interesting work that warrants a closer look (perhaps the subject of a future post) and the role of cosmic rays on climate are address elsewhere. However, the strongest statement is found towards the end of the paper, stating that “these data strongly indicate that global temperature has been dominantly controlled by the level of CFCs, modulated by the cosmic ray-driven ozone depletion over the past century.” Lu is saying that the increased greenhouse effect from CFCs is the main contributor to global warming in recent decades. What is this based on?

    The IPCC AR4 estimate that the radiative forcing from CFCs is 0.33 W/m2. This is about 13% of the total radiative forcing from increased greenhouse gases (with carbon dioxide being the main contributor). However, Lu dismisses this value, arguing that CFC radiative forcing is calculated from climate models and not from direct observations. To examine the potential relationship between temperature and CFCs, Lu compares global temperature to Equivalent Effective
    Stratospheric Chlorine (EESC), a measure of atmospheric CFCs. There is no EESC data before 1970 so the data is extrapolated backwards assuming an identical growth rate until EESC levels hit 0 in the 1940s.

    Lu argues that the correlation between global temperature and CFCs is evidence that CFCs have been the dominant driver of climate over the past century. While there were large short-term fluctuations between 1850 to 1950, global temperature did not show significant overall rise over this period when
    CO2 was rising. Temperatures started increasing around 1950, when EESC levels started to become significant. Finally, EESC peaked around 2000 and has fallen in the last few years while the HadCRUT3 temperature record shows cooling in the same period. Based on this correlation, Lu concludes that “these data strongly indicate that global temperature has been dominantly controlled by the level of CFCs… over the past century”.

    There are several problems with this analysis. The notion that global cooling has been occuring over the last few years is not borne out when one peruses the full range of empirical data. Lu uses HadCRUT data which does not cover the entire globe – the regions where most warming has occurred are excluded from the HadCRUT record. Consequently, HadCRUT underestimates recent warming. When one considers the energy building in the entire climate system (especially the
    oceans where most heat resides), we see that the planet is still accumulating heat through to 2009 (Murphy 2009, von Schuckmann 2009). In recent years while the radiative forcing from CFCs was falling, the planet has still been in positive energy balance.

    The physics of how CFCs might impose such a strong radiative forcing are not addressed. Lu mentions that the radiative forcing from CFCs haven’t been directly measured, then moves onto statistical correlations. In fact, the greenhouse effect from CFCs have been quantified from surface observations of the infrared radiation spectrum (Evans 2006). The observed results are broadly consistent with model predictions of greenhouse forcing (although observations show slightly higher forcing than model results). The proportion of CFC forcing
    compared to total greenhouse forcing is still around 14%, a close match to the IPCC estimate of 13%.

    So we see that CFCs play only a small part in driving global temperatures. Unfortunately, this means that the recent drop in CFC levels will only have a small impact on global temperatures (if only it could be that easy). Of more concern is the increasing radiative forcing from CO2. The infrared spectrum analysis in Evans 2006 measures the extra heat trapped by rising carbon dioxide, finding a CO2 radiative forcing of 2.1 W/m2 (again slightly higher than model predictions). This begs the question to those that argue that CFC (or any other mechanism) is meant to be causing global warming. If so, what’s happening to all the heat trapped by CO2?”

    [My note: See more at Skeptical Science (): “Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge and improve their understanding. Yet this isn’t what happens in global warming skepticism. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet eagerly, even blindly embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog or study that refutes global warming. So this website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?”]

  • Dougetit

    Eli@81

    You totally missed my point @76. That is why I put TRENDS in capitals for those who blindly spout the AGW “Knee Jerk” talking points response to 1998. I said:

    “1998 is picked because this is where the major divergence in TRENDS began. As Trenberth said “…It’s a travesty that we can’t account for the lack of warming…” None of their models had or could predict this cooling trend.”

    And the divergence TREND is greater EVERY year after 1998. NASA/NOAA will lose ALL credibility when their data literally reaches the boiling point.

  • Steve L

    NOAA stated that 15 years of cooling would invalidate models,
    we have 3 to go.

    But I think the last of their credibility vanished last year when they reported ‘record ocean temps’ the huge leap was achieved by (as they state) excluding the satellite data that they said was giving a ‘cooling bias’!
    (the satellites must have been paid off by Exxon just like the 10’s of thousands of scientists who refute global warming!)

    NASA’s GISS jumped the shark when James Hanson went on TV calling for oil execs to be tried for ‘crimes against humanity and nature’

    IPCC relied on the CRU data- as if the UN needed discrediting any further

    That about wraps it up for the institutionalized governmental scientific consensus,
    the independent scientific community, as always, wins out with simple scientific method in the end.

  • Dougetit

    Daniel J. Andrews @60

    Daniel, I agree with you there. I have been to sites where they delete my posts when I don’t project their p0int of view. At Real Climate, they have blocked everything I attempt to post there. The worse site though is Greenfyre’s. They actually edit my posts to say something I did not and delete my posts that contain links to factual data such as the UAH dataset. Fortunately, we have folks like you who keep these sites honest by getting the word out! In my case, I have no voice. All I can do is avoid those sites and find more reputibale sites such as this one.

  • Dougetit

    Steve L. @83

    I agree.. Ironically, I believe that NASA was at one time using Satellite data for most SST’s. Likely Satellite data was discontinued by NASA/NOAA when the temps diverged from Hansen’s AGW models. And that wasn’t the first time Hansen has been caught fudging the numbers. I wouldn’t trust a word he says. I can‘t understand how he’s gotten away with it for so long, after all, he is fraudulently using taxpayer money. It will be interesting to watch him squirm when the lawsuits fly this year!

    Like I said erlier, Some folks are so engrained in the AGW “Faith” that NASA/NOAA wont loose all of their credibility until thier data literally shows boiling temps while at the same time it’s snowing out thier window.

  • Art

    I believe everything I read, so I’m really confused now.

  • bill

    Ok seriously who cares if carbon emmisions cause global warming? Its still SMOG pollution! Have any of you ever breathed in ehaust? Go try it and see how it feels. Whether the globe is warming or not is unimportant. This arguing is exactly what the oil companies want. If you don’t believe pollution (which is caused by man) wreaks havoc on the environment, you are just in convenient denial my friend. i suppose you people would have me believe the mutations in the everglades, the dead zone, the mass croc deaths in the nile due to foreign toxin buildup, the great pacific garbage patch and acid rain are all natural occurrences? grow up people, learn to take some responsibility

  • Eli

    Dougetit @82 calls my attention to a quote by Trenberth, lifted out of context, “It’s a travesty that we can’t account for the lack of warming.”

    I cited @48 ten resources, almost all of them reports on published, peer-reviewed scientific studies, and @77 and @81 (I apologize for the partial double post) I cited nine more resources, almost all of them reports on peer-reviewed scientific studies. Some of these studies were published very recently in late 2009, after Trenberth made his comments.

    The published, peer-reviewed scientific studies backing up global warming deniers are where?

    I explained @18, @31, @35, and @47 some of the mistakes of the global warming deniers. But here is yet another way that they are getting it all wrong:

    Based on how they are responding to Trenberth’s comment, lifted out of context, they implicitly hold that temperature must at all time correlate perfectly with the amount of heat energy of the globe – no natural variability allowed.

    I find that they hold to this mind-boggling, and I find that they believe that Trenberth hold to this mindboggling, because it seems to me that even a well educated elementary school kid with a good head for scientific thinking would know that we could not expect perfect correlation – that given a complex system as complex as a whole planet, we should expect some and even quite a bit of natural variability in this correlation. There are lots of places that accumulating heat could go other than into raising temperature.

    When that comment of Trenberth is put back in context, what he is clearly communicating is, PUT GENERALLY, that what is a travesty is that we can’t explain the hows and whys of natural variability in many complex systems, especially one as complex as a planet. What he is not communicating is what the global warming deniers say he is, this being the astounding nonsense that temperature must at all times correlate perfectly with the amount of heat energy of the globe – no natural variability allowed.

    This series of emails gives the context:

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1052&filename=1255523796.txt

    It’s clear as day: There is no cover-up of some belief that the planet is actually losing heat. There is no conspiracy here. Trenberth is clearly operating under the fact that because of the laws of physics, the heat has to be there and is accumulating. They just are debating whether it’s a travesty that humanity presently does not have enough knowledge to track all this accumulating heat. Trenberth even says that if we do not learn more such that we can always track it, we cannot engage in such things as geoengineering.

    Part of the context is a paper that Trenberth published:

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final2.pdf
    An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy

    I recommend all read it.

    I note that in one of the studies I cited @48, this study published in very late 2009, which is AFTER Trenberth made his comments, is that satellite data is showing that starting in 2006, even the East Antarctic ice sheet is melting when it was not expected to be melting. As I said above, some of the planet’s heat energy that would otherwise go into raising temperature could go into other things. One of these things is melting ice. That’s right. Melting ice. Note that other recent studies I cited @48, also published in very late 2009 after Trenberth made his comment, show that CO2 causes global warming – global heat accumulation – more easily than was previously thought. Combining all this very recent information published after Trenberth made his comment could provide some answers as to where some of the accumulating planetary heat is going.

    If this heat energy that could be raising global temperatures even more than it already has is going into melting more polar ice – including East Antarctic ice – more quickly than would otherwise have been the case, then that’s very bad for humanity in light of the science I cited @48. It’s so important, I sum it up again – the first four are very recent studies:
    1) The East Antarctic ice sheet that was not supposed to be melting has been melting since 2006.
    2) Antarctic ice sheets melt more easily in response to global warming than was previously thought.
    3) CO2 causes global warming – planetary heat accumulation – more easily than was previously thought.
    4) The East Antarctic ice sheet is more unstable and collapsible than was previously thought.
    5) The collapse of unstable Antarctic ice sheets roughly 15,000 years ago caused a sea level rise of 70 feet in only a few hundred years.

    We cannot afford to see the East Antarctic ice sheet melting because that one ice sheet contains as much as 90% of the world’s frozen fresh water. All of it melting would mean a sea level rise of 200 feet. Any collapse of any part of the East Antarctic ice sheet would be catastrophic, since, for instance, all of coastal Florida all around the state for 30 miles inland and all of southern Florida, all of which holds the vast majority of Florida’s population, is less than 20 feet above sea level.

    For a good education as to how global warming deniers are making mistake after mistake, I recommend to the public to go to the Skeptical Science website
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/
    to see what the facts actually are. This is what they are about: “this website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?”

    They have a good account of what the facts actually are, what Trenberth says in his paper I cited above:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-for-the-lack-of-warming.htm
    Trenberth can’t account for the lack of warming

    [From the Skeptical Science article:]

    “Trenberth wonders with this ever increasing heat, why doesn’t surface temperature continuously rise? The standard answer is “natural variability”. But such a general answer doesn’t explain the actual physical processes involved. If the planet is accumulating heat, the energy must go somewhere. Is it going into melting ice? Is it being sequestered deep in the ocean? Did the 2008 La Nina rearrange the configuration of ocean heat? Is it all of the above? Trenberth wants answers!”

  • Dougetit

    bill@87

    Are you referring to me? If so… I AM against air and water pollution and wastefulness of resources but am extremely upset that environmentalism has been hijacked by politicians and persons with agenda’s who have/will seize Billions/Trillions of our dollars for a non-problem, especially when the proposals to fix the “non-problem” would have no effect on the non-problem. Think how much better the world would be if we spent half of this money on real environmental issues and not phony Co2 mitigation. Co2 is not a pollutant, it is required for all of life to exist. Plants and Trees grow better with higher Co2 levels. In turn, plants create oxygen for us to breath.

    When these facts are exposed to the true environmentalist, they will be quite upset that they have been fooled my friend.

  • Eric M

    Still trying to keep the fraud to milk the people of this planet of trillions in wasted money that will fight the fake global warming claims and line the pockets of scientists/politicians that don’t really care about the planet. They have warped their data for years and avoiding problematic information that would blow their claims, so they keep crying wolf to avoid losing grants.

  • Steve L

    Bill @87,

    like many believers you have plenty of passion, and are probably well meaning, but you have little grip on the science- sorry that sounds patronizing, you are probably very intelligent,
    but it is a common misconception that Co2 = pollution. Perhaps because it contains the word ‘carbon’ people think of it as dirty and unnatural.

    Smog has nothing to do with Co2. The particulates that cause smog actually COOL the atmosphere.

    Co2 is what literally makes our planet green. if Co2 is pollution, then all plant life and hence all life on Earth is ‘pollution dependent’.

    Most life evolved in periods of vastly higher atmospheric ‘pollution’

    and you are exhaling ‘pollution’ right now.. etc

  • Steve L

    Eli, with all that typing- have you looked outside your window?

    If you live almost anywhere in the N Hemisphere right now, you’ll see everything covered with more empirical scientific evidence than any computer simulation!

  • mathlete

    @Steve, 92, I agree. I live in a suburb north of NYC and it’s been damn cold this winter. Not only has everything been snow covered for about 2 months, but it’s been below freezing for the last 3 weeks. Just a few days ago every state had at least 1 city with temps below freezing, with the exception of Hawaii.

    @Bill, smog is caused by sulfur dioxide and particulates given off by factories, usually from burning coal. Acid rain is caused by nitrogen, sulfer, and carbon (particulates, not dioxide gas). It also may occur naturally due to sulfer dioxide released during volcanic activity or energy from lighting strikes that cause nitrogen compounds in the atmosphere to split.

  • Gwenny

    And now you know why since 1995 I have vehemently argued against calling it global warming. Because I suspected that, like in every other cycle for millions of years, the weather would become erratic and extreme in BOTH directions. But, hey, I’m just a crazy woman, what do I know.

  • http://www.e-dot.com NikFromNYC

    Global Warming is happening. Accelerated Global Warming, which is required if AGW is to be proven correct, is not yet happening according to actual temperature measurments. Current variation still has clear precedent.

    http://i49.tinypic.com/rc93fa.jpg

    http://i49.tinypic.com/2mpg0tz.jpg

    http://i48.tinypic.com/dy5a3m.jpg

    Satellite data says it has leveled off for decade, globally. Computer models claim a strong AGW signal is responsible for recent warming, so much so that each EXTRA year of non-warming becomes highly significant, because computer models insist that such lulls in warming should NO LONGER last entire decades (and counting). That’s why record cold winters (not just winter itself…duh) are suddenly important in a very objective way.

    That AGW enthusiasts are starting to hedge their bets to explain away a possible cooling spell of even several decades does something very important to notice: it makes a mockery of their former claim that Accelerated Global Warming is akin to a law of physics that only fools would challenge.

  • Dougetit

    Eli@88 Thank you.

    I’m sorry but I am having trouble following your logic. Best I can tell it seems you are trying to tell me I lifted Trenberth’s email out of context so I will post the entire email, Emails before and after the “Lack of warming” quote, but without comment or interpretation as you seem to be trying to apologize for Trenberth’s statements…

    From: Kevin Trenberth
    To: Michael Mann
    Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
    Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:36:36 -0600
    Cc: Tom Wigley , Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones”

    , Benjamin Santer , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

    Mike
    Here are some of the issues as I see them:
    Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation. What are the physical processes?
    Where did the heat go? We know there is a build up of ocean heat prior to El Nino, and a
    discharge (and sfc T warming) during late stages of El Nino, but is the observing system
    sufficient to track it? Quite aside from the changes in the ocean, we know there are major
    changes in the storm tracks and teleconnections with ENSO, and there is a LOT more rain on land during La Nina (more drought in El Nino), so how does the albedo change overall
    (changes in cloud)? At the very least the extra rain on land means a lot more heat goes
    into evaporation rather than raising temperatures, and so that keeps land temps down: and
    should generate cloud. But the resulting evaporative cooling means the heat goes into
    atmosphere and should be radiated to space: so we should be able to track it with CERES
    data. The CERES data are unfortunately wonting and so too are the cloud data. The ocean
    data are also lacking although some of that may be related to the ocean current changes and
    burying heat at depth where it is not picked up. If it is sequestered at depth then it
    comes back to haunt us later and so we should know about it.
    Kevin

    Michael Mann wrote:
    Kevin, that’s an interesting point. As the plot from Gavin I sent shows, we can easily
    account for the observed surface cooling in terms of the natural variability seen in
    the CMIP3 ensemble (i.e. the observed cold dip falls well within it). So in that sense,
    we can “explain” it. But this raises the interesting question, is there something going
    on here w/ the energy & radiation budget which is inconsistent with the modes of
    internal variability that leads to similar temporary cooling periods within the models.
    I’m not sure that this has been addressed–has it?

    m

    On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:

    Hi Tom
    How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is
    happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
    Kevin

    Tom Wigley wrote:
    Dear all,
    At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data.

    Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.

    These sums complement Kevin’s energy work.

    Kevin says … “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment
    and it is a travesty that we can’t”. I do not agree with this.

    Tom.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++

    Kevin Trenberth wrote:

    Hi all

    Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here
    in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on
    record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal
    is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about
    18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather
    (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last
    night in below freezing weather).

    Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s
    global energy. /Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27,
    doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]

    (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

    The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
    travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on
    2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our
    observing system is inadequate.

    That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on
    a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is
    the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing
    with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time
    since Sept 2007. see
    [2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitorin
    g_current.ppt

    Kevin

    Michael Mann wrote:

    extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd,
    since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from
    what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.

    We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for
    the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?

    mike

    On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote:

    Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and
    sampling errors to this new “IPCC Lead Author” from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino
    year and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary–presumed–vacation worth a
    few tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be another
    dramatic upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard someone–Mike Schlesinger maybe??–was
    willing to bet alot of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10
    years of global mean temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest in
    reconstructed 1000 year record and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big
    retreat?? Some of you observational folks probably do need to straighten this out as my
    student suggests below. Such “fun”, Cheers, Steve

    Stephen H. Schneider

    Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies,

    Professor, Department of Biology and

    Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment

    Mailing address:

    Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building – MC 4205

    473 Via Ortega

    Ph: 650 725 9978

    F: 650 725 4387

    Websites: climatechange.net

    patientfromhell.org

    —– Forwarded Message —–

    From: “Narasimha D. Rao” <[3]ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >

    To: “Stephen H Schneider” <[5]shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >

    Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific

    Subject: BBC U-turn on climate

    Steve,

    You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC’s reporter on climate change, on
    Friday wrote that there’s been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will
    force cooling for the next 20-30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as
    are other skeptics’ views.

    [7]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

    [8]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on
    -climate-change/

    BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US.

    Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist?

    Narasimha

    ——————————-

  • http://www.e-dot.com NikFromNYC

    I see East Antarctica is the new SKY IS FALLING bogey man. But southern sea ice is INCREASING (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png). Note that indeed it increased and then decreased though, recently, as variations in the overall trend, just as Eli claims. The Grace satellite authors themselves suggest a subterranean lake may have drained.

    West Antarctic melting has nothing to do with AGW, but in fact fully corresponds to the existence of active vulcanism along the entire West Antarctic coast. An edge of spreading tectonic plates runs all the way down from West Canada down Western South America to Antarctica. That’s why California has so many earthquakes and why including the West coast of Antarctica in temperature or ice measurements of Antarctic studies is a joke. That slice of Antarctica is in a different climate zone altogether, one that is in some areas literally steaming hot (see the first 20 seconds of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQBjUEdwK5o).

  • Dougetit

    Montvillian @96

    Lines up nicely with the facts as I have discovered them to be.

    Thanks!

  • Slides

    Nice article. Should have been titled “Obvious things are obvious”

    Yes. 1 day, one month, 1 year of cold weather doesn’t mean global warming isn’t happening.

    So, why is the reverse true? Why are a few years of warm weather a sign of global warming? Especially since you consider typical climatic periods last hundreds to thousands of years.

    Here is a table of the temperature anomalies for the US:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

    You should look at 5 year averages as they smooth out random variations.

    Yes. the mid 1990s and 2000s are warmer than average, by about .75 degrees. So it is obviously man made global warming. And the 1930s are also hotter than average, by about .4 degrees. So it is obviously man made global warming too… During the industrial boom known as the great depression.

  • Steve L

    Agree with Slides

    I think we are all familiar with the ‘a quick local cold snap isn’t climate’ by now, it’s certainly been used enough (for the last few years all over the world)

    But to most people and 10’s of thousands of skeptical scientists it’s starting to wear a tad thin from over use.

    the greatest extent of global snow cover in recorded history-
    not really a localized weather event…

    and 12 years of flat to cooling temps isn’t exactly a ‘quick cold snap’
    anymore

    I’d hate to use the word ‘denial’ as I’d sound like a crazy person (or Al Gore), but just a little environmentalist dogma perhaps?

    but apparently a single hurricane, wildfire or photo of a polar bear taking a dip is indisputable scientific evidence of CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING!!

  • http://www.RoanokeSlant.org LB Hagen

    Please visit following blog items and web site for summary of our 250 years of natural global warming:

    http://roanokeslant.blogspot.com/2010/01/global-warming-runs-hot-and-cold.html

    http://www.RoanokeSlant.org

    LBHagen@RoanokeSlant.org
    -

  • Eli

    There are some who wish to pooh-pooh the idea of Antarctica losing ice.

    Check out what NASA has to say as of Jan 12 (and add the recent studies they cite to the recent studies I cited @48 and @77):

    http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=242
    Is Antarctica melting?

    “There has been lots of talk lately about Antarctica and whether or not the continent’s giant ice sheet is melting. One new paper 1, which states there’s less surface melting recently than in past years, has been cited as “proof” that there’s no global warming. Other evidence that the amount of sea ice around Antarctica seems to be increasing slightly 2-4 is being used in the same way. But both of these data points are misleading. Gravity data collected from space using NASA’s Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too. How is it possible for surface melting to decrease, but for the continent to lose mass anyway? The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting.

    Two-thirds of Antarctica is a high, cold desert. Known as East Antarctica, this section has an average altitude of about 2 kilometer (1.2 miles), higher than the American Colorado Plateau. There is a continent about the size of Australia underneath all this ice; the ice sheet sitting on top averages at a little over 2 kilometer (1.2 miles) thick. If all of this ice melted, it would raise global sea level by about 60 meter (197 feet). But little, if any, surface warming is occurring over East Antarctica. Radar and laser-based satellite data show a little mass loss at the edges of East Antarctica, which is being partly offset by accumulation of snow in the interior, although a very recent result from the NASA/German Aerospace Center’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) suggests that since 2006 there has been more ice loss from East Antarctica than previously thought 5. Overall, not much is going on in East Antarctica — yet.

    A Frozen Hawaii

    West Antarctica is very different. Instead of a single continent, it is a series of islands covered by ice — think of it as a frozen Hawaii, with penguins. Because it’s a group of islands, much of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS, in the jargon) is actually sitting on the floor of the Southern Ocean, not on dry land. Parts of it are more than 1.7 kilometer (1 mile) below sea level. Pine Island is the largest of these islands and the largest ice stream in West Antarctica is called Pine Island Glacier. The WAIS, if it melted completely, would raise sea level by 5 to 7 meter (16 to 23 feet). And the Pine Island Glacier would contribute about 10 percent of that.

    Since the early 1990s, European and Canadian satellites have been collecting radar data from West Antarctica. These radar data can reveal ice motion and, by the late 1990s, there was enough data for scientists to measure the annual motion of the Pine Island Glacier. Using radar information collected between 1992 and 1996, oceanographer Eric Rignot, based at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), found that the Pine Island Glacier’s “grounding line” — the line between the glacier’s floating section and the part of the glacier that rests on the sea floor — had retreated rapidly towards the land. That meant that the glacier was losing mass. He attributed the retreat to the warming waters around West Antarctica 6. But with only a few years of data, he couldn’t say whether the retreat was a temporary, natural anomaly or a longer-term trend from global warming.

    Rignot’s paper surprised many people. JPL scientist Ron Kwok saw it as demonstrating that “the old idea that glaciers move really slowly isn’t true any more.” One result was that a lot more people started to use the radar data to examine much more of Antarctica. A major review published in 2009 found that Rignot’s Pine Island Glacier finding hadn’t been a fluke 7: a large majority of the marine glaciers of the Antarctic Peninsula were retreating, and their retreat was speeding up. This summer, a British group revisited the Pine Island Glacier finding and found that its rate of retreat had quadrupled between 1995 and 2006 8.

    How the Ice Shelf Crumbles

    The retreat of West Antarctica’s glaciers is being accelerated by ice shelf collapse. Ice shelves are the part of a glacier that extends past the grounding line towards the ocean they are the most vulnerable to warming seas. A longstanding theory in glaciology is that these ice shelves tend to buttress (support the end wall of) glaciers, with their mass slowing the ice movement towards the sea, and this was confirmed by the spectacular collapse of the Rhode Island-sized Larsen B shelf along the Eastern edge of the Antarctic Peninsula in 2002. The disintegration, which was caught on camera by NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) imaging instruments on board its Terra and Aqua satellites, was dramatic: it took just three weeks to crumble a 12,000-year old ice shelf. Over the next few years, satellite radar data showed that some of the ice streams flowing behind Larsen B had accelerated significantly, while others, still supported by smaller ice shelves, had not 9. This dynamic process of ice flowing downhill to the sea is what enables Antarctica to continue losing mass even as surface melting declines.

    Michael Schodlok, a JPL scientist who models the way ice shelves and the ocean interact, says melting of the underside of the shelf is a pre-requisite to these collapses. Thinning of the ice shelf reduces its buttressing effect on the glacier behind it, allowing glacier flow to speed up. The thinner shelf is also more likely to crack. In the summer, meltwater ponds on the surface can drain into the cracks. Since liquid water is denser than solid ice, enough meltwater on the surface can open the cracks up deeper down into the ice, leading to disintegration of the shelf. The oceans surrounding Antarctica have been warming 10, so Schodlok doesn’t doubt that the ice shelves are being undermined by warmer water being brought up from the depths. But he admits that it hasn’t been proven rigorously, because satellites can’t measure underneath the ice.

    Glaciologist Robert Bindschadler of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center intends to show just that. He’s leading an expedition scheduled to start in 2011 to drill through the Pine Island Glacier and place an automated buoy into the water below it. According to Bindschadler, Pine Island Glacier “is the place to go because that is where the changes are the largest. If we want to understand how the ocean is impacting the ice sheet, go to where it’s hitting the ice sheet with a sledgehammer, not with a little tack hammer.”

    Meanwhile, measurements from the Grace satellites confirm that Antarctica is losing mass 11. Isabella Velicogna of JPL and the University of California, Irvine, uses Grace data to weigh the Antarctic ice sheet from space. Her work shows that the ice sheet is not only losing mass, but it is losing mass at an accelerating rate. “The important message is that it is not a linear trend. A linear trend means you have the same mass loss every year. The fact that it’s above linear, this is the important idea, that ice loss is increasing with time,” she says. And she points out that it isn’t just the Grace data that show accelerating loss; the radar data do, too. “It isn’t just one type of measurement. It’s a series of independent measurements that are giving the same results, which makes it more robust.”

    For more information about this topic, visit NASA’s Global Climate Change website.

    References:
    1 Marco Tedesco and Andrew J. Monaghan, “An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability,” Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L18502 (2009).
    2 http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg
    3 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090421101629.htm
    4 http://nsidc.org/seaice/characteristics/difference.html
    5 J. L. Chen et al., “Accelerated Antarctic ice loss from satellite gravity measurements,” Nat. Geosci. 2, 859-862 (2009).
    6 E.J. Rignot, “Fast Recession of a West Antarctic Glacier”, Science 281, 549-551 (1998)
    7 P.A. Mayewski, et.al., “State of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Climate System,” Rev. Geophys., 47, 1-38 (2009).
    8 D. J. Wingham et.al., “Spatial and Temporal Evolution of Pine Island Glacier thinning, 1995-2006,” Geophys. Res.Lett. 36, L17501 (2009).
    9 E. Rignot et.al., “Accelerated ice discharge from the Antarctic Peninsula following the collapse of Larsen B ice shelf,” Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, L18401 (2004)
    10 R. M. Robertson et al., “Long term temperature trends in the deep waters of the Weddell Sea”, Deep Sea Research 49, 21, 4791-4806 (2002); http://condor.pems.adfa.edu.au/FD-Course/webpage/longterm.pdf.
    11Isabella Velicogna, “Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE,” Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L19503 (2009).
    12 J. H. Mercer, “West Antarctic ice Sheet and CO2 Greenhouse Effect-Threat of Disaster,” Nature, 271 (5643), 321-325 (1978).
    13 R. Kwok & D.A. Rothrock, “Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESat records: 1958 – 2008,” Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L15501 (2009),

  • Dougetit

    The Artic seems to be warming up. The eastern Artic is experiencing a radical change in climate conditions, and unheard of high temperatures in that part of the earth’s surface.
    The oceanographic observations have, however, been even more interesting. Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. An expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north as 81 deg 29’ in ice-free water. This is the farthest north ever reached with modern oceanographic apparatus.
    The character of the waters of the great polar basin has heretofore been practically unknown. Dr Hoel reports that he traversed a section of the Gulf Stream at 81 deg north latitude and took soundings to a depth of 3100 meters. These show the Gulf Stream very warm, and it could be traced as surface current till beyond the 81st parallel. The warmth of the waters makes it probable that the ice conditions will continue for some time.
    Later a section was taken of the Gulf Stream off Bear Island and off the Isfjord, as well as a section of the cold current that comes down along the west coast of Spitzbergen off the south cape.
    In connection with Dr. Howl’s report, it is of interest to note the unusually warm summer in Artic Norway and the observations of Capt. Martin Ingebrigstsen, who has sailed the eastern Artic for 54 years.
    He Says that he first noted warmer conditions 4 years earlier and since that time it has steadily gotten warmer and that today the Artic of that region is not recognizable as the same region.
    Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable. Where formerly great masses of ice were found there are now often moraines, accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea they have entirely disappeared.
    The change in temperature, says Captain Ingebrigtsen, has also brought about great change in the flora and fauna of the Artic. This summer he looked for white fish in Spitzbergen waters. Formerly great shoals of them were found there. This year he saw none, although he visited all the old fishing grounds.
    There were few seal in Spitzbergen waters this year, the sightings being far under average. This, however, did not surprise the captain. He pointed out that formerly the waters about Spitzbergen held and even summer temperatures of about 3deg C; this year recorded temperatures up to 15deg C and last winter the ocean did not freeze over, even on the north coast of Spitzbergen.
    With the disappearance of white fish and seal has come other life in these waters. This year herring in great shoals were found along the west coast of Spitzbergen, all the way from the fry to the veritable great herring. Shoals of smelt were also found.

    Source: MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW November 1922

    http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

  • big boi

    I agree with dougetit on a lot of his thoughts when it comes to people producing bogus info. And I also agree that this site has a lot of info on a lot of differant subjects and it is valid info. thanks dougetit

  • Eli

    Dougetit @103 is evidently a response to what I related @102, what NASA has to say about Antarctica losing ice.

    This post @103 speaks of temperatures in the Arctic for just one year, 1922, and nothing else. This is evidently an attempt to argue that since there has been melting of ice at that time, then melting ice anywhere else now, like say, the East Antarctic ice sheet, is no big deal. The essence of this argument is a mistake – it is essentially a mistake type in one of the classes of the misuses of applied mathematics identified in Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences, a 1988 book by mathematician John Allen Paulos.

    When we put the year 1922 in context, this post @103 actually supports the global warming thesis, which is that when we start looking at data and their graphs longer term, starting around 1880, we see that there has been an upward trend over this longer term. Note that 1922 was close to the middle of a 30 year upward sub-trend. (Some melting ice during such an upward sub-trend is not a problem for the thesis in question.)

    I suggest everyone look at the many different longer term graphs provided by NASA, starting point roughly 1880:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

    As I cited @102, what NASA says as of Jan 12, Antarctica since 2002 and including East Antarctica since 2006 is losing ice and is losing it at an ever accelerating rate.

    This post @103 is obviously an attempt to show that this ever increasing acceleration of Antarctic ice loss, which could eventually lead to a collapse of the Antarctic ice sheet, is something to sneeze at.

    But as the recent – including the very recent – studies and other resources I cited @48, @77, and @88 show, the possibility of the Antarctic ice sheet collapsing is most certainly not something to sneeze at:

    (1) At the end of the last major ice age about 15,000 years ago, a collapse of the Antarctic ice sheet caused the sea level to rise about 70 feet in just a few hundred years (all of the coastal areas of the state of Florida for many miles inland and all of South Florida are all less than just 20 feet above sea level, and the vast majority of Florida’s population is in the these areas, and multiply this situation throughout the rest of the world);
    (2) the Antarctic ice sheet, including East Antarctica, is less stable and more easily collapsible than was previously thought;
    (3) much of the East Antarctic ice sheet, which holds as much as roughly 90% of the world’s frozen fresh water (its displacing of ocean water would raise the seal level by about 200 feet) is sitting on bedrock that is below seal level, which means that warming ocean water could directly effect it, and from below;
    (4) the Antarctic ice sheet, including East Antarctica, loses ice more easily in response to – is more sensitive to – any warming than was previously thought;
    (5) the globe warms more easily in response to – is more sensitive to – any increasing CO2 than was previously thought;
    (6) the main cause of this present longer term warming could not have been changes in the sun, or cosmic rays, or chlorofluorocarbons (I also cite resources showing the falsity of the claims of studies that CFC’s [chlorofluorocarbons] and cosmic rays are the cause), which, since there has not been meaningful volcanic activity, means that by the process of elimination only increasing CO2 could be the main cause.

    The CERES data in the last few years show that the Earth has been taking in more heat than it has lost, which means that for the present time this accumulating heat is going into whatever heat sinks it can find, wherever they are, other than into the atmosphere and thus directly and immediately raising atmospheric temperatures more than otherwise. As I noted @88, Trenberth in those emails was essentially arguing to some of his colleagues that what is a travesty is that humanity does not presently have the knowledge and skill needed to be able to track that accumulating heat going into all those heat sinks, whatever and wherever they are (deep ocean water and melting ice are a couple of mentioned possibilities). Some of his colleagues disagreed that this lack of present knowledge and skill is a travesty. These emails therefore show no conspiracy, and no coverup. And I note that those emails were written before much of the very recently published science I cited above was published. But in spite of that, he did mention in an email that if this accumulating heat is going into deep ocean water, then that accumulating heat that may continue to accumulate over time could be bad news in the future (in terms of manifesting itself as even more climate warming even more quickly than would otherwise have occurred over a certain span of time).

    Those who argue against this recent global warming over this longer term, from around 1880, keep committing the types of mistakes I outlined @18, @31, @36, and @47, the essence of these mistakes essentially being in the same classes of the misuses of applied mathematics identified by Paulos in his book that I mentioned above. Just for once, I’d like to see them stop committing these mistakes and at least try to come up with something of substance to use in their attempt to argue against this warming over this longer term, and most especially in their attempt to argue against all this recent science I cited above.

  • boston

    while what i think about this whole thing is that people don’t know the differece between weather and climate. weather changes everyday and climate does not change.

  • Jeff Saxton

    Once again?? Well, then once again, a picture of a polar bear on an ice floe doesn’t prove AGW. Neither do pictures of a few selected melting glaciers, hiding climate data, biased researchers trying to prevent publication of opponents, etc.

  • Steve

    The island nations of the Pacific such as Tuvalu are starting to be inundated with water. In 2009, the NorthWest set major heat records. The Southern US has been in drought for a long period of time. California has had some of its worst fires in decades, not to mention every year Californian fires seem to escalate to devestating levels. In 2009, many Ocean temperatures were the warmest on record. Right now as we speak Australia just got over a 110 degree farenhite temperature, they are in drought. Australia has seen an increase in forest fires. In 2008 Myanmar got hit with a VERY devestating cyclone which actually rearranged the coastline as seen from satellite taken pictures. In 2009, the summer in Europe saw unusually warm temperatures however they were not as bad the begining of the decade. Around 2008 the Wilkins Ice Shelf deteriorated and was one of the largest of the Antarctic ice shelves to be threatened thus far. What climate change dose is cause weather patterns to go to extremes more then usual. These extremes can either be cooling or heating. While this particular event may be unrelated to climate change, WHEN YOU MELT LOTS OF ICE AS IN THE NORTH AND SOUTH POLES (THE CLIMATE IN THE POLES CHANGES MORE RAPIDLY THEN DOWN HERE AND THE WARMING IS CAUSING MELTING OF THE ICE STORED IN THOSE REGIONS OF THE WORLD.) OBVIOUSLY THIS COOLS THE OCEANS A LITTLE BIT WHICH THEN COOLS WEATHER PATTERNS because Oceans are one of THE DRIVING FORCES OF CLIMATE on Earth. The planet has regulatory systems which are still operating, but because of the warming, they are shorting out. The cooling trend we are in may just be the failing attempt of the planetary system to prevent further warming. In the graphs showing temperatures of the 1800’s to present day, I have noticed that before each warming period there is a cooling event. As I closely looked at it, these cooling and warming periods continued to get warmer over the decades. James LoveLock mentioned these kinds of mechanisms in his book: The Vanishing Face of Gaia. LoveLock is an independent atmospheric and chemical scientist who proposed the Gaia Theory in which the Biosphere of the Planet acts in such a way as to make the Environment more suitable for life. His findings showed that the Earth system acts to balance itself such as now, but that it is going to fail and restabilize at a higher temperature then it is currently if we continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere as well as destroy forest habitats.

  • Steve

    Not to mention that when we burn fossil fuels we: acidify the ocean, create acid rain, put high levels of mercury in fish, and release a whole host of toxins into the natural environment which cause different forms of cancers or diseases. Fossil fuels ARE a resource that once completely consumed will be gone and humanity will be left without a way to power itself unless we turn to alternative energies. Not only are these renewable energies better for the environment, but are lasting.

    Despite Climate Change we should stop burning fossil fuels because of what I have just written above. What I have written above is not debated, everything written there is true and scientists have proven it with numerous studies.

    As for climate change, many thousands of scientists from around the world form the IPCC, each taking accurate temperatures of places all over the world. I feel that Climate Change has become a battle of science against wealthy companies that hold sway over political leaders as well as other scientists not to mention the extreme religious who are gainst any thought of man having an impact on the Environment. Think about it, for example, the tabacco companies stood on trial and actually said smoking dosn’t cause bodily harm. Companies and people in general are greedy, they want money even at the expense of the Natural Resources that ALL living things depend on. We really are a selfish organism.

    The WWF reports that there are only 1600 Pandas left, 3600 tigers left (most live in captivity), and within the next three years we could loose blue fin tuna to extinction. According to NASA, a Chinese river dolphin has already gone extinct. Tigers occupy only 1% of their natural range. We are loosing thousands of acres of forests everyday. The United States alone uses 30% of the planet’s total resources. Those tidbits of info are just the tip of the iceburg…

    On top of all of that there is a possibility that we could be altering our planets weather, should we not take steps to prepare against that chance. For those of us who disagree with climate change and have just read what I wrote don’t you think that with this added pressure on delicate ecosystems it may cause their collapse… I am only asking everyone to think, think about the Environment on which we depend before making up your mind…

  • Dougetit

    Eli @ 105

    “In connection with Dr. Howl’s report, it is of interest to note the unusually warm summer in Artic Norway and the observations of Capt. Martin Ingebrigstsen, who has sailed the eastern Artic for 54 years. He Says that he first noted warmer conditions 1918 and since that time it has steadily gotten warmer and that today the Artic of that region is not recognizable as the same region of 1868 to 1917”

    http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

    Eli would have you believe this event reported in 1922 was a one year event. It was at least 5 years. Eli needs to stop committing the acts of mathematical, scientific illiteracy.

    Sea Ice is not melting at unusual rates…..

    http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/9972_large_daily.gsia.jpg

    Polar Bear population is at all time highs…..

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=cb2faa9c-802a-23ad-4bcc-29bb94ceb993

    To top things off, James Hansen of NASA HAS BEEN CAUGHT “AGAIN” MANIPULATING STATION REPORTS! Why is he not behind bars?

    http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/01/15/hansen-nailed-for-us-climate-data-manipulation/

    Why waste billions/trillions of dollars on bogus CO2 capture when the money could better be spent on to mitigate things such as listed by Steve @ 109 above. Wake up! Co2 is not the problem!

  • Dougetit
  • Montvillian

    I posted this before, but it somehow got deleted. Both sides of the argument should read a great article from Burt Rutan, designer of SpaceShipOne:
    http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/Rutan.Intro.AGW.b.pdf

  • Montvillian

    The trick is to detect and react, not make faulty predictions based on incomplete, tuned, or falsified data and overreact.

    No matter what the cause, any climate change will result in natural winners and losers. If the change comes quickly, only those who migrate or evolve quickly will survive. Nature is a beautiful thing. I’m glad we have evolved brains, tools, and technology that allow us to detect and react to changing conditions. We actually know when to move off of low-lying islands. Yeah to Homo sapiens!

    Do we want to CO2 to be a pollutant? Have we declared war on all animals? If we hug the trees too much, will we strangle them and ourselves in the process? Do we want to spend trillions on carbon capture methods – or is this activity driven by those who would benefit Do we really need to react immediately – or should we study things a bit more before making rash decisions?

  • Montvillian

    Nasa has published their uncertainties about Climate Change science:
    http://climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties/

  • JOE SHMOE

    I agree with Montvillian, the world cant immediately adjust to the current crisis’s everything takes time. Why don’t we let the next generation who will hopefully be a hell of a lot smarter than us deal with global warming? None of us will live long enough to see the real effects anyway…

  • 4TimesAYear

    1. If record-setting COLD temps do not DISPROVE global warming, then record-setting HOT temps cannot PROVE global warming.
    2. If record-setting COLD temps do not disprove global WARMING, then neither do record-setting HOT temps disprove global COOLING
    3. If record-setting COLD temps are evidence of global WARMING, then record-setting HOT temps are evidence of global COOLING

  • MarbleCity Frog

    I can’t believe it. 100,000,000,000 year + old – and less than 200 years of statistics – not enough data to prove or disprove global warming or ice age – could it be as simple as the axis of the earth are shifting with the plates shifting and the planets are moving – global warming activists have no clue but want money to keep their organizations going – not real bright in my opinion.

  • DesertDan

    The only true global warming going on is the money going into the bank accounts of people like Al Whore, the chiefest of hypocrites. On the one hand he want regular folks to quit using fossal fuels while he rides around in his private jet. If these global warming hypocrites really believe what they say, then why don’t they set the example by living in 500 square foot homes with no electricity or heating or air conditioning and eat their veggies and walk where ever they need to go. That will be the day I’ll listen to what they have to say.

    Liars All!!!!!!!

  • Montvillian

    Somebody on the Man-made Global Warming side … help me understand why we should believe any global temperature data from NOAA? This analysis of surface temperature measurement methods, bias, and errors is unbelievable:
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

  • http://www.blanketamerica.com poor

    Absolutely true…I agree…just look at the response to this article…so why are’nt we doing anything about it?We must to save ourselves and the coming generations from it.

  • Adjel

    IMO, all the bickering about global warming or not is moot. The Earth will do whatever it damn well pleases whether we are here or not. There have been ice ages, and periods of “global warming” with ice caps melting, etc. throughout the entire history of the planet long before humans were ever out of the primordial sludge, and it will continue to do those things regardless. The Earth is dynamic, and we are trying to make it static. Magnetic north will change, continents with shift, it will get freezing cold and then blistering hot, land will be created and land will be destroyed, and there is not one thing that we can do about it, no matter how “green” we go. It’s similar to when, hundreds of years ago, people use to make sacrifices to the “gods” to make sure spring came, so they would have rain for their crops. If spring didn’t come when they felt it should, then they reasoned that the gods were displeased with their sacrifice, and they would sacrifice more people or animals until the gods were pleased and sent spring. They truly believed that what they did, or didn’t do, changed the outcome of the seasons, when it really didn’t matter, because spring would come when it would come, but it would eventually come. Regions of the globe experience seasons yearly, but the Earth itself, as a whole, experiences seasons (ages), too, and there will be ice ages and periods of volcanic upheaval no matter what we do.

  • Bruce

    Lol…yeah, cold temperatures are ‘weather’ whereas one hurricane proves anthropogenic global warming because we never had hurricanes in the past.

  • Petro

    Our Governments have painted themselves in a corner on this man made global warming theory. The bottom line is they need our taxes to get the nations out of debt using Global Warming as “Fear God”. Governments have already spent billions on this and if proven wrong would bring their downfall. My view is this is bigger than Y2K.

    Current levels of CO2 are around 400ppm. Real experts say we cause 2% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. If we all stopped using electricity, cars etc and stopped breathing we could reduce the total CO2 to 392ppm. This a long way short of the 350ppm target.

    By all means, seek out alternate energy and improve air quality in the larger cities, but what every we do we cannot change the climate.

  • Ian Rivlin

    I’m just eager to find out exactly what it would (hypothetically, of course) take to convince the so-called climate scientists that there isn’t global warming.
    The Vostok ice core data shows far greater CO2 concentration approximately 160,000 years ago – yet the world didn’t overheat.
    The medieval warm period shows how much more affluent and productive earth was, when the temperatures were 2-3 degrees warmer than they are now. Yes, there has been some warming since the mid 1970’s – of course there has – this was purely cyclical variation that has been occurring for the past 2 billion years. The arrogance of the puny human to think that they can affect the earth’s climate is breathtakingly irrational. All these climate predictions have been done on computer modeling. This is hopelessly inaccurate and can’t even predict the weather two weeks ahead of time, yet we’re to accept the word of these doomsayers who expect us to believe their predictions for 40 years in the future? Hitler managed to con a whole nation – but what these self-serving, nest-feathering climate scientists are doing is conning an entire planet. When world economies have all collapsed, as a result of carbon taxes and the downward trend of global temperatures has finally become unequivocally established, what will you say to these scientists ? They are liars and cheats and should be treated as such. Stand up and be counted. Don’t allow yourselves to be so easily manipulated.
    Read the following article, then decide.
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100055500/global-cooling-and-the-new-world-order/

  • Jim

    This aricle really clears it up. NOT. Get ready for another ass chapping cold winter that pinheads will call “climate change” or temperature oscillations or whatever. Gimme a break. The earth isn’t warming.

  • JOE SOUTH

    Try forming the words “GLOBAL WARMING” while standing in a -10 degree gale!!

  • Bob

    Climate vs weather is a good distinction to make. The warming climate is pretty much a forgone conclusion since simple measurements confirm it. But is anybody forwarding any hypothesis at all about the weather? If there’s enough caloric energy in the atmosphere to drive the ice in glaciers through the phase change from solid ice to liquid water – which takes a lot more energy than to raise either water or ice one degree – then when that ice melts it either sinks into the oceanic thermoclines or evaporates as very cold air masses. As time goes on it seems likely that the warming will increase because the “heat sink” of the phase change has been passed. In the meantime, that colder air and water surely must have some effects on weather. Weather! Is there anybody studying the short term effects? Seems like there should be, unless everybody’s gone mum to keep the whole global warming issue from being politicized and then marginalized by (see all denying, uninformed, overwrought comments…)

  • BobP

    Yes..But for 13 of the past 20 years we have been cooling. That is no longer weather but Climate.

    check out the Chart: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/27/world-warming-faster-study

    That was last year telling us how this year was going to leave no question about global warming. Now were under record cold and snow.

  • Bert

    Most of the data does not support global warming your looking at the wold with blinders on always will, just pushing an agenda.

  • http://www.kellerhopkinssmith.com/helpdesk/ Josefa Compean

    Hello, i think that i saw you visited my weblog thus i came to “return the favor”.I’m attempting to find things to enhance my site!I suppose its ok to use some of your ideas!!

  • John

    Well I can see that the alarmists are still at it………..we will be 10 years into the next ice age, and it will still be blamed on Global Warming!!

  • http://www.paypal.com/ Leo Selan

    Where is this blog’s contact us page because i cant seem to locate the page, prehaps you might want to make it more easier to see.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

80beats

80beats is DISCOVER's news aggregator, weaving together the choicest tidbits from the best articles covering the day's most compelling topics.
ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »