100 Things To Know 100 Days Before The Copenhagen Climate Talks

Grist:

7. Hey, ladies: It's now legal to go topless at Copenhagen's public pools.

8. Oxfam has celebrities painting their faces blue for its "Blue in the Face" campaign: demand action on climate change from leaders at Copenhagen until you're blue in the face!

Read the whole story: Grist

Comments

[Richard2]

The current Arctic temperatures are consistent with 50 years of Arctic air temperature data.

No signs of global warming in current Arctic temperatures.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

[realpolitic]

Richard loves to paly scientist, but always does so with so much Fox News-style misinformation!

"Temperatures in the Arctic are their highest in the past 2,000 years, and human-produced greenhouse gases are countering a natural cooling over eight millennia, according to research out today."

"Arctic temperatures began rising in 1900, as the industrial revolution took hold, and accelerated after 1950. But the past 10 years have caused the most dramatic, human-induced temperature spike in the frozen regions of the planet, scientists report in the journal Science."

Using geologic records (ice cores, tree rings and lake sediments) and computer simulations, the research "provides new evidence that the Arctic would be cooling if not for greenhouse gas emissions that are overpowering natural climate patterns."

"Thousands of years of cooling were the result of changes to the Earth's orbit: "As part of a 21,000-year cycle, the Arctic has been getting progressively less summertime energy from the sun for the last 8,000 years. That decline won't reverse for another 4,000 years.""

"Arctic temperatures are now 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.2 Celsius) warmer than in 1900."

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/09/study-arctic-temperatures-highest-in-2000-years.html

[Richard2]

79 Days before Copenhagen:

If the delegates at the conference intend to frighten the world with alarming predictions of giant sea level increases due to global warming, how will they explain the long term data from the Copenhagen tide station?

The long term mean sea level at Copenhagen has been increasing at a rate of only .49 mm per year, which equates to only two inches per century. Further, this modest increase has been a steady one, with no accelerated rate of increase over the past couple of decades.

The evidence from the Copenhagen tide station provides no support for claims by conference delegates that the earth is facing disastrous Global Warming.

[realpolitic]

Richard, do you know anything about tidal station data, in your attempts to play scientist. Each individual station must be corrected for glacial rebound before it reveals anything. It is why these posts are irrevalent!

[realpolitic]

Richard2, why keep lying to support your denier viewpoint! You said: "Since the 1990s, the sea level readings have dropped, during a period when CO2 emissions have continued to increase." The truth is sea levels readings have not dropped, as you say, but continue to increase.

[rblackbird]

Some warmists maintain as their principle argument, as often expressed in these postings, the remark, "If you are not convinced by the science that convinces me, you're stupid."

[realpolitic]

I thought it was all a conspiracy and hoax!

[realpolitic]

According to a new report peer-reviewed by the world's top climate scientists,...


"The Arctic is warming at twice the global average causing the dramatic loss of sea ice. Nearly 40% of sea ice that was present in the 1970s was lost by 2007, which will severely influence atmospheric circulation and weather in the Arctic and beyond. The warming of the Arctic is projected to change temperature and precipitation patterns in Europe and North America, affecting agriculture, forestry and water supplies."

"In addition, the Arctic's frozen soil and wetlands store twice as much carbon as are held in the atmosphere. As warming in the Arctic continues, the soil will increasingly thaw and release carbon into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide and methane, at significantly increased rates. Levels of atmospheric methane, a particularly potent greenhouse gas, have been increasing for the past two years, and it is believed that the increase comes from the warming Arctic tundra."

"In a first-of-its kind assessment, incorporating the fate of the ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica into global sea level projections, the WWF report concludes that sea-levels will very likely rise by more than one meter by 2100 -- more than twice the amount given in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 assessment. The associated flooding of coastal regions will affect more than a quarter of the world's population."

http://www.agprofessional.com/show_story.php?id=60498

[Richard2]

80 Days before Copenhagen:

The NOAA tide station website provides tide station data from Denmark. The six Danish tide stations indicate a very modest rise in sea levels over time, with absolutely no indication of unusual, accelerating sea level rise, due to global warming in recent decades.

The long term rate of sea level rise ranges from only .25 mm per year at Hornbaek, to only 1.03 mm per year at Frederica. These rates of long term increase equate to only a few inches per century of sea level rise. Denmark, a nation bordered by water on three sides, doesn't appear to be in danger from rising seas.

[realpolitic]

Richard, even the coal and energy industry experts know that warming is undisputed. Why be their useful idiot?

"But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the (energy industry) coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.""

“"The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,” the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=1&hp

[Richard2]

As the Antarctic sea ice approaches it peak level for the southern winter, which occurs this month, the sea ice extent is already greater than the average sea ice extent over the 1979-2000 period. The sea ice is already over 300,000 sq.km greater than the average.

[realpolitic]

Poor Richard2 is now limited to the same one or two talking points he repeats endlessly! Richard, let us know when you prove climate science to be fradulent!!

[Richard2]

One of the puzzling things about Global Warming supporters is how they place such great confidence in the forecasts from computer models about future climate trends.
Six months ago, websites started collecting the forecasts of professional and citizen climate trend followers, just to see who would most closely forecast the minimum Arctic Sea Ice extent that would occur in September, 2009.

Thanks to the Internet, everyone could make their predictions, along with the so-called experts. Hopefully someone will soon write up a nice summary of those predictions, and who came closest to reality, and who missed the mark the most.

Most experts predicted 4,000,000+sq.km. Most climate sceptics predicted 5,000,000+ sq.km. My own forecast was 5,125,000 sq.ft. We are now only hours from the minimum. Right now it looks like my forecast was too low!

It will be entertaining to see who's forecasts hit very close to the actual minimum sea ice extent. It also may be interesting to discover the backgrounds of those who made the most accurate forecasts.

It appears there may be some sort of bias built into all the "experts" forecasts, such that they have missed reality by about 15%-20%. What could it be?

[realpolitic]

Oh man, Richard continually distorts reality with a childish enthusiam! He is right about the internet. Thanks to the intenet deniers think they know something without ever reading the actual science becuase they can go to one or two right wing sites supported by the oil industry!

To date, projections of climate change have been way too conservative. Many forecasters thought the Arctic would be ice free by next century, then 2040, and now 2013. But such a game of discredited a forecast is something deniers like to play because it distracts from the real science!

For example, from a recent study in Nature.....

Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections

"We present recent observed climate trends for carbon dioxide concentration, global mean air temperature, and global sea level, and we compare these trends to previous model projections as summarized in the 2001 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC scenarios and projections start in the year 1990, which is also the base year of the Kyoto protocol, in which almost all industrialized nations accepted a binding commitment to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The data available for the period since 1990 raise concerns that the climate system, in particular sea level, may be responding more quickly to climate change than our current generation of models indicates."

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5825/709

[realpolitic]

Worst-case projections are being realized......

Nearly 2,000 climate researchers meeting in Copenhagen agreed:

"The worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realized," the scientists said in a statement. "There is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts."
The climate change panel predicted a sea level rise of 7 to 23 inches by the end of the century, which could flood low-lying areas and force millions to flee. But more recent research presented at the conference suggested that melting glaciers and ice sheets could help push the sea level up at least 20 inches, and possibly as much as 39 inches, or about 1 meter.

http://news.aol.com/article/climate-changes/376821
Also,

"Arctic sea ice is melting at a significantly faster rate than projected by even the most advanced computer models, a new study concludes. The research, by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), shows that the Arctic's ice cover is retreating more rapidly than estimated by any of the 18 computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in preparing its 2007 assessments."

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/seaice.shtml

[realpolitic]

You can tell Richard is in a fantasy world when he says "One of the puzzling things about global warming supporters...." In the scientific community there are none other then those who support the scientiifc consensus that co2 is a greenhous gas that retains heat in the atmosphere causing warming. Now Richard, you can back back to your childish fantasies of playing scientist without the years of study and intensive training required!

Finally,

"New research from MIT scientists shows that in the absence of stringent reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, 21st century climate change may be far more significant than some previous climate assessments had indicated."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2009/02/new_research_from_mit_scientis.html

[realpolitic]

Sorry deniers!

"For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming."

“"The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue."

"But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted."

“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,” the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=1&hp

[rblackbird]

(This comment keeps getting posted below)

3 millimeters amounts to 0. 1181 in.

11 to 12 hundredths of an inch. A year.

[realpolitic]

Pending. Please print comment!

[realpolitic]

Well, since they will not seem to post my original thought, I'll try it again! Anyway, ocean levels have risen about eight inches in the last 120 years, Before that they were relatively stable for the past two or three thousand years. Scientists expect a rise of about three feet this century. According to a recent study "More plausible but still accelerated conditions lead to total sea-level rise by 2100 of about 0.8 meter. These roughly constrained scenarios provide a "most likely" starting point for refinements in sea-level forecasts that include ice flow dynamics."

http://science-mag.aaas.org/cgi/content/abstract/321/5894/1340

Three additional feet of sea waters will bring waters very close to Sacramento, as the link reveals...

http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/san-francisco.shtml

Now, rblackbird can tell us it is all a hoax!

[Richard2]

The closest NOAA tide station to Sacramento would seem to be at Alameda. At NOAA's website, anyone can see that the long term sea level rise at this station has been very low. Also in the 21st Century, the mean sea level measurements have been lower than during the 1990s and, of course, considerably below the peak sea level of 1998. Perhaps some scientists expect a 36 inch rise in sea level this century. However, that forecast is completely at odds with the historical sea level data from NOAA, which indicates very moderate increases and decreases in sea level over time, and which indicate a marginal decline in sea level over the first decade of the 21st Century.

[realpolitic]

Well, the point is, Richard, and I know I must break it down as simply as possible for the deniers, is that the melting of Greenland and mountian glaciers around the world is increasing. A study recently showed that the years between 2005 and 2008 temperatures were 9 degrees F warmer in the Arctic than usual. Now the ice loss there does not contribute to sea level change, but Greenland is near and ice loss there is accelerating. Now, the melting of mountaintop glaciers contributes about a third to rising sea levels and they are melting all over the world, as well. Now sea levels have risen 8 inches in the last 120 years, given the data extrapolated from all tidal stations around the world and controlled for glacial uplift. Therefore, an estimate of a three foot sea level rise is very conservative. According to the University of Colorado, taking into account the last two years, sea level rise between 1992 and the present is 3.2 mm per year + or - 0.4 mm per year. Of course, none of this data will change your standard, unthinking denial talking points, so what is the difference?

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/03/study-arctic-sea-ice-melt_n_182651.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080930081355.htm

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=a.SMtX2BKH0I&refer=australia

[realpolitic]

Sorry deniers but the real world differs from your talking points! According to NOAA,

"The sea level has been steadily rising since 1900 at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters per year. In fact, since 1992 new methods of satellite altimetry using the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters per year. "

http://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/Ocean/sea_level.html

[Richard2]

As long as you go back far enough, you can still support these uptrend numbers. However, if you simply look at all the "mean sea level" data over time for each tide station, you can also see that since the 1990s the sea level appears to have dropped back to a lower level. That was my point.

Since the 1990s, the sea level readings have dropped, during a period when CO2 emissions have continued to increase. Also, as the world has stopped warming, why would this trend not be expected to continue? Why aren't public officials admitting that the sea level has dropped in San Francisco Bay?

[realpolitic]

Richard, sea levels have not dropped since 1990. Repeating a lie does not make it true. In fact, sea level rise increased considerably beginning in 1992 when satellite measurements were introduced. Tide stations also record the increase. Local tide stations differ to a large extent as does one tide station from another in California. Why keep repeating lies hoping you will fool a few uninformed people?

The world has not stopped warming. Why believe a position where one must lie constantly for the position to have any truth? Instead of changing the facts, be an adult and change your point of view.

[Richard2]

The most recent mean sea level readings from NOAA's Alameda tide station, across the bay from the San Francisco Airport, show a sea level that is lower than those of most of the 1990s, and lower than the peaks in the 1980s, the 1970s, and 1960s, and even one peak measurement during the early 1940s.

Perhaps someone at Copenhagen should ask: Why hasn't global warming raised the level of San Francisco Bay?

[realpolitic]

Richard, you never tire of trying to change reality? You will be making the same lies 10 years from now. The persistence of the know-nothing crowd is remarkable!

[Richard2]

Page 124 of California's draft "Climate Adaptation Strategy" has a neat aerial photo of San Francisco Airport. There are blue overlays showing the effect of two different sharp increases in sea level on the airport.

The only problem is that the recent historical mean sea level data from the San Francisco and Alameda tide stations indicates no sea level rise since the 1990s.

[realpolitic]

Richard, where do you get your hooey? You never tire of pointing to the San Francisco tidl station. It is amazing.

As said previously, the sea level rise at the San Francisco tidal station is

"The mean sea level trend is 2.01 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 0.21 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1897 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of 0.66 feet in 100 years."

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9414290

At Alameda, sea level rise is...

"The mean sea level trend is 0.82 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 0.51 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1939 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of 0.27 feet in 100 years."

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9414750%20Alameda,%20CA

Which such significant variance, one (except deniers) can see why scientists use satellites to measure overall sea level rise. Satellites measure the rise at 3 mm per year. Why lie and cherrypick to support your position that disagrees with the established science, anyway?

[Richard2]

90 Days before Copenhagen:

The coming week will likely see the minimum Arctic sea ice measurement for all of 2009. How have everyone's predictions worked out? Which persons made the most accurate predictions for the 2009 Arctic sea ice minimum extent? Remember that Al Gore has predicted zero Arctic sea ice at the minimum in 2013.

Right now, the sea ice extent is higher than 2008 (and 2007), and close to the 2005 minimum.

[realpolitic]

Richard2, you are not too big on science, but you can at least count!

[Richard2]

95 Days before Copenhagen:

The AMSR-E Arctic Sea Ice graph is about to bottom out for 2009. Despite all the concern about an iminent ice free Arctic, and about doomed Polar Bears, the Arctic Sea Ice minimum for this summer will be higher than both 2007 and 2008. The sea ice has been recovering for the past 24 months.

[realpolitic]

Richard2, wouldn't it be refreshing to be honest with yourself for a change than to have to constantly lie to try to make a losing argument? You want your eulogy to be that this guy was dedicated to lying on Huff Post to make the discredited denier argument?

[rblackbird]

You again?

I see you continue to hurl insults towards others who challenge your dearly held beliefs.

In just a few spaces, you have described those of us who disagree with you as constant liars, making the "discredited" denier argument. You tell us that we embarrassingly make silly, school child arguments, and that no one beyond the Fox news crowd is fooled by our "silly scientific, far right links to cherry-picked data."

You are no different from the birthers, tea-baggers, and socialized-medicine panic-spreaders. They are a bunch of bullies who shout down their opponents, without listening to them. Their principal weapons are insult and ridicule. They are insecure, and frightened they may be forced to abandon the comfort of their questioned beliefs.

[fumes]

~ BREAKING NEWS ~

130 foot sea level rise not caused by SUV's and apparently survivable.. who knew?

http://www.physorg.com/news170947571.html

[realpolitic]

Fumes, that was during the Younger-Dryas when much of the seas were frozen in glaciers.

"The Younger Dryas saw a rapid return to glacial conditions in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere between 12,900–11,500 years before present (BP) in sharp contrast to the warming of the preceding interstadial deglaciation. .....Thermally fractionated nitrogen and argon isotope data from Greenland ice core GISP2 indicate that the summit of Greenland was ~15°C colder during the Younger Dryas than today. In the UK, coleopteran (fossil beetle) evidence suggests mean annual temperature dropped to approximately 5°C, and periglacial conditions prevailed in lowland areas, while icefields and glaciers formed in upland areas."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

[Mogamboguru]

Just in time:

"Could Australia B.l.o.w Apart the Great Global Warming Scare?"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/24/could_australia_blow_apart_the_great_global_warming_scare_97148.html

Read and comprehend.

"Times that are a-chang-ing!"