We've been freezing our collective arses off here in New England and it just turned winter yesterday. Last week I read it snowed in Malibu, Las Vegas, New Orleans and Houston to name a few typically snowless venues . I also watched some football this weekend and there was snow every where you expect it in December including an unlikely locale in the city of Seattle where it hasn't snowed like that in a decade.
This lead me to do a little research to see if the "science that was in" is now out and low and behold common sense seems to be creeping back into the science world.
Here is an article I read in the Examiner, you can read it in its entirety at http://www.examiner.com/x-431-SF-Politics-Examiner~y2008m12d22-Cracks-in-the-global-warming-consensus
I also see other similar article at :
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=46999d7c-4078-4fe4-a0e0-3df0eaac0f4f
and:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/18/letters-climate-change-poznan
Read and enjoy as I put on another layer of clothing, turn up my oil fired furnace, crank up my gas fired log in the fireplace and spike the egg nog for the holidays
Merry Christmas and remember Al Gore is not a scientist , he is a snake oil salesman.
The UN global warming conference held in Poland last week faced a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore.
Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN.
The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007.
The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
A sample of comments in the U.S. Senate Minority Report:
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 252
Come on now, Eli cannot do the job by himself!!! He NEEDS an offense, Keith. Most everybody else is beating the tarnation out of Dallas. But I got the tarnation beat out of me for betting on New York, Keith.
and now, back to our regularly scheduled program.
Sorry about that, Keith. LOL.
With a little research and intelligence, posts like this will not appear.
Fairbanks!!! -- LOOK AT THE WORLD MAP, KEITH!!! is hotter than the Bay Area at the same exact time, and I am bouncing around bare armed, which is something I nearly never do here, but did in Alaska, Keith.
Something is WRONG with that picture!!!
Have you talked to Alaskans about this?
Whole towns being evacuated, disappearing, ceasing to exist/GHOST TOWNS because the permafrost that was the basis for the town has caused the town to SINK???!!!
Eli and the G-Men came through on Sunday night with a classic gridiron battle.
I do know the difference between weather and climate.
I also do know that sunspot activity is now at a minimum and not so coincidentally the temperatures have dropped.
Not so coincidentally we had higher temps when sunspot activity was at its height in its cycle.
Either way the Earth's climate is always in flux, paying higher taxes won't change that.
The Al Gore's of this planet are using this hoax to line their pockets and expand their control over the masses for their own "good". I don't need his benevolent oversight.
I have provided Keith with links re: weather vs. climate before. So, in answer to your question, "ignoring the obvious difference between the two can only be caused by ____________?", I would have to add the word "willful" just before the blank. And no, that's not an insult - just an observation.
But, Nancy, so many don't.
I cite that sunspot activity has more to do with the Earth's natural cycle between warmer and cooler climates than anythign man has to or can have to do with it. I believe the confusion among those who want to believe we are the cause of any perceived climate change always comes back to how we treat the ecology of our planet. I don't have a problem with being clean, but I am going to burn fossil fuels and exploit what ever natural resource God has put here fro us to use and I am going to do it without one ounce of guilt.
Hence I am going to rev up my Corvette tonight, just to keep the battery from dying on me during its winter hibernation.
I might add I just bought a truck with a big power V-8 that uses gasoline and compressed natural gas.
I also might add that data that is contrary to the pilgrim of MAN Made Global warming theories ignore the southern ice caps having grown by 20% since 1998, that we have been in a cooling trend since 1998, that we had more industrial pollution in the twentieth century than now and yet were told by scientists we were facing a new ice age, other planets in the solar system are experiencing parallel conditions as those on Earth(making the Sun more of the culprit than anything else) ...can I go on and on , yes I can.
My point is the planet cycles between colder and warmer climes, man does not control it.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.
Al Gore is a prophet and only the Nobel Prize saved him from being capped by the evil Bushites/oil company agents!
It's not a Prius. You know as little about hybrids as you know about climate change. I see, though, that you have a loyal choir here. What they all fail to realize is that their "opinions" are worthless. You and they will not find one scientific organization in the world that disputes the IPCC Reports. Mother nature does not care what your opinions are. In the meantime:
Himalaya glaciers melting much faster
If you think mideast oil has national security implications for the U.S., wait until far east water conflicts erupt.
Global warming inspires enterprising solutions
How about these?
Great evidence, but...
Why not cite peer-reviewed and published scientific papers from respected journals, rather than "internet bloggers" with little or no scientific knowledge?
What an idiot.
The Earth's average temperature has been increasing. This causes the frequency and severity of extreme weather (both cold and hot). That's the bottom line. There is consensus on this because we have the data.
Is this cyclical or is this the result of bad behavior the last two hundred years or so? That's where the debate this.
Let's do nothing and see if the cycle finishes up is not an option. You don't do trial and error to disengage a bomb.
Actually the average temp has been decreasing over the past 10 years.
Climate Change is the issue, Global Warming is a misnomer as some places are warmer while others are cooler. The Change is overall, with the average temperature of the planet on the rise.
Ice free summers in the Arctic Ocean are just the latest proof of Climate Change.
Ignore the deniers, there is no point in debating ignorance. The key is to work towards the reduction of greenhouse gases, and now that the hot air is leaving the White House, there is chance to move towards that goal.
From these records, eleven of the last twelve years (1995–2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global temperature (since 1850). The total global temperature increase from the 1850s throught to 2005 is 0.76°C (1.36°F) and the rate of warming averaged over the last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years.
An increasing rate of warming has taken place over the last 25 years, and 11 of the 12 warmest years on record have occurred in the past 12 years. Above the surface, global observations since the late 1950s show that the troposphere (up to about 10 km) has warmed at a slightly greater rate than the surface, while the stratosphere (about 10–30 km) has cooled markedly since 1979. This is in accord with physical expectations and most model results.
Here are examples of the quality of the stations that measure weather. The sad truth is over two thirds of these station do not meet the minimum criteria for a weather site.
Do you know that NOAA has no quality control program in place for the USHCN?
That there is not quality control program for the world-wide GHCN?
Uh-huh, and how much of that upward trend in termperature is due to the building of parking lots?
A classic case of how weather readings get corrupted is the NOAA's National Weather Service Twin Cities, MN Weather Forecast Office located at 1733 Lake Drive West in Chanhassen, MN.
Thirty years ago the site was a pristine grassland punctuated by what locals called "the big white golf ball" that housed the NWS radar. Today, the area is dominated by asphalt shingle roofs, tarmac roads, and concrete parking lots. All of which retain and radiate heat, enough heat to melt the ice and snow that normally would accumulate on grass.
The site is useless but keeps pumping it corrupt micro-climate data into the USHCN system.
The same with the Twin Cities airport, another primary USHCN data point. In the last few years the Metropolitian Airport Commission added another runway.....right next to the data collection site.
The spike in temperature readings should surprize no one.
Yet, increasing over the last 100 years. During those 100 years, you can find 3, 4, 5 year period where averages decrease, and you can cling to it, if that makes you feel better.
A lower than average sea ice extent in the Arctic in the last few years is due to the well-known phenomena of Arctic Oscillation. Technically, the ice does not "melt" rather it is broken up by Arctic storms and pushed from west to east (at about 3 mph) to where it is blown out to sea in the North Atlantic.
The lowest Arctic sea ice extent occured in the years between 1929 and 1934.
Correction Alan, over the last 400 years.
Thanks. 62.2. Great car!!!
????? ??: "Ignore the deniers, there is no point in debating ignorance."
It's a good point. Sometimes, though, I like stirring them up. You never know when someone might "get it", perhaps after their sister experienced floods in Iowa, for instance, or when their parents might have lost a home in California to a record wildfire season. I think behind the ignorant bravado, there often times is doubt.
I remember a video, in which a courageous pastor was trying to decide how to prepare for a sermon to his congregation, worrying how they would accept his "conversion" re: global warming. He based his sermon on biblical verses re: stewardship. And to his surprise, his congregation was very supportive - and relieved. Many held private convictions that global warming and other environmental issues were serious matters - but couldn't talk about it in church or community.
Careful Greg,
????? ??
Might get offended.
Can you provide one scientific organization - just one - that disputes the IPCC Reports?
That says it all!! Thanks for that, Mr. Jeff. What the hell do scientists know about it, anyway??? That's one I'll quote for a long time!!!
"The great thing about complex data is that one can basically come up with any number of headlines describing it - all of which can be literally true - but that give very different impressions. Thus we are sure that you will soon read that 2008 was warmer than any year in the 20th Century (with the exception of 1998), that is was the coolest year this century (starting from 2001), and that 7 or 8 of the 9 warmest years have occurred since 2000. There will undoubtedly also be a number of claims made that aren't true; 2008 is not the coolest year this decade (that was 2000), global warming hasn't 'stopped', CO2 continues to be a greenhouse gas, and such variability is indeed predicted by climate models. Today's post is therefore dedicated to cutting through the hype and looking at the bigger picture."
Well, you can laugh, but no scientific organization in the world laughs with you.
Rosa: "Where did our moon come from? And why do ancient myths call our Moon the older sister."
Oh, I see. You're into myths - so I guess science won't matter to you that much. Of course, "Mama" is giving some indications that she's getting pretty itchy. Haven't you noticed?
LOL! I hear ya though. If you want the theory of carbon dioxide contributing to global warming to be true the last thing you want to hear are facts that diminish a perfectly good doom theory.
Anyways it is comforting to know that we have scientists that can control the climate on a planet millions upon millions of years old and they figured it all out using data (albeit flawed as proven by Greg) from only 100 years worth of collections. Now that IS incredible and we should give them more money for research and we should do what ever they say if we want to live!
Rosa you really need to start taking these geniuses more seriously. Our lives depend on it.
Facts. Now that's an interesting claim. And where to these "facts" come from - they must be very powerful indeed, seeing that they (at least in your world) render science irrelevant. But I'm proud for you to continue to dismiss science, Jeff. I'll be happy for you to continue to do so - I think I'll make a file of "Jeff quotes" to that effect.
Those crazy guys at NASA!!
Predicting 2008 to be the ninth warmest year on record before it is even over and all the data has been reported must take some pretty snazzy science -- but then that is the kind of thing we have all come to expect from NASA - that and their constant mistakes, like including the September Siberian data in the November data set.
Oops, you think that might be a problem?
In this press release, NASA claimsBut then they also claimSo which is the truth?
Is 2008 the 9th warmest or 10th warmest?
Did instrumental temperature measurements began in 1850? Or thirty years later in 1880?
Why do NASA and the Met Office disagree on data that is in the public domain and why does GISS raw data from NASA keep changing for years like 1880, 1883, 1885, 1901, 1906....etc.etc, etc?
The theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is suppose to be based on science yet when its proponents speak of it, they speak of miracles and metaphors and rarely science.
No peer reviewed study has linked floods in Iowa or fires in California to climactic changes. On the contrary, floods in Iowa have been common for tens of thousands of years, it is only as of late that people have been foolish enough to build expensive houses on flood plains. The same is true for fire areas of California. Fire is natural in that climate and the destructive force of those fires has been attributed to both the building of homes in fire areas as well as attributable to California communities not allowing natural fires to occur on a periodic basis.
Look at the dribble that NASA, a supposedly "scientific: organization includes in its press release on the topic of the 2008 temperature summary.
Costliest?
Isn't increased cost solely attributable to the rising value of property built in hurricane prone areas?
It is.
So why is a "scientific" organization like NASA being coy with "cost" rather than speaking in scientific terms?
Why would this even come up in a NASA press release?
Isn't this just cheezy propaganda, unworthy of a once great institution?
With earliest snowfall on record in Las Vegas and cold records being broken around the country -- why are they releasing the temperature summary for 2008 on 12/16/2008?
They haven't even released the December 2008 data set.
Why the rush?
Could it be that they see three Arctic blasts working their way across the country and decided to grab the propaganda coup before it slips out of their grasp?
That says a lot for the type of people James Hansen has promoted to positions of authority within NASA.
It is all very sad.
Hey, I'm no scientist but I can think for myself and when the Vikings were able to FARM in Greenland during the warm time and then the English were able to have winter carnivals ON the Thames river during the cold times then you have a problem with your "man made climate/weather change" theory.
BTW Greg - great photos.
Kieth - great article, keep it up!
Name one scientific organization that disputes the IPCC Reports.
Greg: "No peer reviewed study has linked floods in Iowa or fires in California to climactic changes."
True. No specific weather event can be said to be caused by global warming. It is a general statistical phenomenon. Statistics are valid for many - not single - events. Still, it is clear that the frequency, duration and intensity of such events are predicted by climate science. For your denialist comrades, it's like saying that Joe's lung cancer cannot be attributed to his 45 year smoking habit. But, who in their right mind is going to say that smoking had nothing to do with it?
Greg: "...but then that is the kind of thing we have all come to expect from NASA - that and their constant mistakes...."
It's good to see you constantly berate NASA, NOAA, the National Weather Service, etc. You should add all the other scientific organizations to your target list. That will surely help your credibility.
I don't explain it, Dale - but climate scientists do here and here. That's the point - your opinion and my opinion are useless in this discussion. No scientific organization in the world disputes the IPCC Reports. Why do you insist on failing to comprehend that?
Thanks, Dale. I'll add that to the list of "contrarian quotes" that Jeff has also been kind enough to provide me with. You guys are the best!!! Regards, and Merry Christmas!!!
*rolls eyes*
LOL. Contrarians say the darndest things.... Did you catch Jeff's gem above: "Don't let facts get into the way scientist's theories."
Name one pope who was an atheist.
That's right, since I will HAVE to have my blood drawn, please make it an amateur. And, since I'm flying where no man (or woman) has flown before, let's make it a pilot that does this on the side. Meanwhile, let's trap people who LOVE TO TINKER in an electronics filled box for three years.
Brilliant!
*His contention on the medical was that astronauts didn't want to have medical experiments done on the trip. Excellent thinking! Let's throw away a multi-billion dollar opportunity to learn more about people in a different and long term gravity gradient and radiation environment! Putz!
Steve if you weren't so full of yourself and smitten with all those wonderful all powerful scientists you would realize that CO2 based global warming is still an unproven theory despite what your high priests like the noteworthy scientist, Al Gore, (inventor of the internet) tell you. I know I know, inconvenient facts are stupid things.....
By the way, there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny either.
It's understanding that distinction between uncertainty making exact predictions impossible without changing the overall answer that you need to have a basic understanding of science for. You don't need a lot, just that modicum available in high school for the clever. Unfortunately, it is clearly in short supply.
Addressing this situation sooner rather than later not only (a) reduces the impact of the overall damage, but also (b) reduces cost of correcting it DRASTICALLY as well as (c) dozens of nice added benefits like overall reduction in energy costs for consumers, bringing our country into THIS century on the subject of energy instead of falling behind all the other first world nations, reducing our dependence on finite resources BEFORE we have no choice (i.e. also less painfully) and reducing our political dependence on energy sources we don't have ourselves.
The upside to more of the same is what, again?
Mischaracterization is your specialty. Lie? Tell me, Greg, if you smoke for a couple of decades, do you increase your risk of lung cancer or not? It's the same thing. If you know anything about statistics, you know that. If you know that, then who's the liar? If you don't, then why do you comment on things you don't know about?
Thanks again, Jeff, for demonstrating your impressive ignorance of science, as well as your undeniably low regard for it. So, what do you consider a better measure of such "unproven theories", such as global warming, than science?
Now, now..., Stephanie. Jeff has apparently found a better source for studying phenomena, like global warming, than science. I'm really curious re: his new field of study. In the meantime, would you mind explaining statistics to Greg?
Please cite where Al Gore ever claimed that 1. he is a scientist, 2. he invented the internet, and 3. he is a priest.
However, speaking of Al Gore, it seems he's now in an excellent position to help shape public policy re: global warming.
Jeff: "By the way, there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny either."
So, I guess Santa and the Easter Bunny are not your alternatives to science. I can hardly wait to see what your more valuable (than science) source might be. Hmmmm......
Your response to my challenge: "Name one scientific organization that disputes the IPCC Reports."
Thanks for clarifying your disdain for science. Along with Keith, Jeff, and Dale, I hope to have a real treasure chest of anti-science sound-bytes to quote in the future.
Speaking of science, though, you, and your anti-science comrades, are in for a few years of frustration, it seems. The new adminstration is taking a strong scientific orientation on issues like global warming. Physicist, Steven Chu, will be Energy Secretary. Physicist, John Holdren, will be the administration's science advisor. And biologist, Jane Lubchenco, will be the director of NOAA.
That the Vikings farmed in Greenland during the warm times and the Engllish held winter carnivals on the Thames River in the cold times are also FACTS.
You have a bunch of politically motivated scientists who want to line their pockets with government funds because they are claiming the sky is going to fall. Why don't you show me where these eminently qualified scientists explain why the earth's climate changed so dramitically over the 1100 years and why over the last 10 we have had a cooling of our temperatures.
I'll give you a hint....you know that big yellow ball up in the sky that you see during the day? That's a lot more powerful than all us humans put together. Of course, politically minded scientists and your standard politician can't force stupid legislation regulating the sun!
The IPCC is a political, not a scientific group. I have no idea why you expect scientific organizations to speak out on political matters, but then I have to remind myself that subordinating science to politics is what you are all about.
The new administration is assuming a European posture. It will loudly proclaim its allegence to the faith, yet do nothing substantial.
It will be like a drunk in church, who though he may be a sinner is still accepted because he professes belief.
Explain the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming in 50 words or less.
I am constantly stunned how many people, some of them scientists, cannot coherently explain what it is they believe. Most get it completely wrong.
Show us what you are made of.
It's interesting you mention that, Steve. The paper I presented last October to the International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety was precisely on that topic: Understanding the Limitations of Model and Analyses. I won't reproduce it here, but it basically pointed out that one should be leery of putting too fine an expectation of a model or a statistical analysis because they are all, even the best, limited to the data they were built with and the assumptions that go into them. That does not mean that they are not useful or that or that results are invalid, but that the uncertainties have to be factored in with those results. I also mentioned that one had to become an expert on the subject before one could effectively question it. Given that Greg wants you to describe a complex theory in "50 words or less", I feel confident that this explanation will mean nothing to him.
Dale: You have a bunch of politically motivated scientists who want to line their pockets with government funds because they are claiming the sky is going to fall. I hear this BS all the time. Prove it. If you're going to accuse us of lying, prove that it is so (with data, not rhetoric, mind you). Scientists in this country who've been fighting this fight for decades have had their jobs THREATENED by this, not gotten their pockets lined. The BS artists fighting this, however, are getting paid by an industry with no future. If we use your logic, you're on the wrong damn side. Not that I expect you to realize it.
Greg: I am constantly stunned how many people, some of them scientists, cannot coherently explain what it is they believe. The fact that you want a cogent explanation in 50 or less to a complex theory tells me that the most reasonable explanation isn't going to work unless it's the one you want to hear. Jerks who feel that way in science are tossed out as quacks.
I can do it, Stepanie, so why can't you?
Is it because you have never bothered to understand what you believe?
No one suggested that climate models are not useful. What is being suggested it that climate models are not reliable enough to base a radical restructuring of the world economy.
But let's talk about the climate data the models themselves are based on.
From the "about" page of SurfaceStations.org, an organization that is surveying the USHCN network.
Steve.
You spoke of floods and wild fires.
You spoke of them knowing full well that there is no scientific or statistical basis for suggesting that the number or severity of current incidents of floods and fires are affected by global climate change.
Saying something you know is not true, is telling a lie
Actually, I did. You missed it.
Dale: "...it's hardly a disdain for science. I look at facts not fads like you do."
I keep asking you guys to name one - just one - scientific organization that disputes IPCC. All you come up with is this kind of meaningless rhetoric. Yes, it's disdain for science.
Dale: "You have a bunch of politically motivated scientists...."
1. Stephanie addressed that very well. 2. Yes, there are "a bunch" of scientists supporting global warming theory. 3. You have failed to name one scientific organization that disputes IPCC.