'Global Warming Is Undeniable' Says Annual State Of The Climate Report

RANDOLPH E. SCHMID | 07/28/10 02:24 PM | AP

What's Your Reaction?
Hot Weather

WASHINGTON — Scientists from around the world are providing even more evidence of global warming, one day after President Barack Obama renewed his call for climate legislation.

"A comprehensive review of key climate indicators confirms the world is warming and the past decade was the warmest on record," the annual State of the Climate report declares.

Compiled by more than 300 scientists from 48 countries, the report said its analysis of 10 indicators that are "clearly and directly related to surface temperatures, all tell the same story: Global warming is undeniable."

Concern about rising temperatures has been growing in recent years as atmospheric scientists report rising temperatures associated with greenhouse gases released into the air by industrial and other human processes. At the same time, some skeptics have questioned the conclusions.

The new report, the 20th in a series, focuses only on global warming and does not specify a cause.

"The evidence in this report would say unequivocally yes, there is no doubt," that the Earth is warming, said Tom Karl, the transitional director of the planned NOAA Climate Service.

Deke Arndt, chief of the Climate Monitoring Branch at the National Climatic Data Center, noted that the 1980s was the warmest decade up to that point, but each year in the 1990s was warmer than the '80s average.

That makes the '90s the warmest decade, he said.

But each year in the 2000s has been warmer than the '90s average, so the first 10 years of the 2000s is now the warmest decade on record.

Story continues below
Advertisement

The new report noted that continuing warming will threaten coastal cities, infrastructure, water supply, health and agriculture.

"At first glance, the amount of increase each decade – about a fifth of a degree Fahrenheit – may seem small," the report said.

"But," it adds, "the temperature increase of about 1 degree Fahrenheit experienced during the past 50 years has already altered the planet. Glaciers and sea ice are melting, heavy rainfall is intensifying and heat waves are becoming more common and more intense."

Last month was the warmest June on record and this year has had the warmest average temperature for January-June since record keeping began, NOAA reported last week.

And a study by Princeton University researchers released Monday suggested that continued warming could cause as many as 6.7 million more Mexicans to move to the United States because of drought affecting crops in their country.

The new climate report, released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and published as a supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, focused on 10 indicators of a warming world, seven which are increasing and three declining.

Rising over decades are average air temperature, the ratio of water vapor to air, ocean heat content, sea surface temperature, sea level, air temperature over the ocean and air temperature over land.

Indicators that are declining are snow cover, glaciers and sea ice.

The 10 were selected "because they were the most obviously related indicators of global temperature," explained Peter Thorne of the Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites, who helped develop the list when at the British weather service, known as the Met Office.

"What this data is doing is, it is screaming that the world is warming," Thorne concluded.

___

Online

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate

Get HuffPost Green On Twitter, Facebook, and Google Buzz!
WASHINGTON — Scientists from around the world are providing even more evidence of global warming, one day after President Barack Obama renewed his call for climate legislation. "A comprehensive...
WASHINGTON — Scientists from around the world are providing even more evidence of global warming, one day after President Barack Obama renewed his call for climate legislation. "A comprehensive...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
369
Pending Comments
0
View FAQ
Login or connect with: 
More Login Options
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »   (4 total)
photo
susankhbelen   11:53 AM on 8/18/2010
Recently told a denier “Your kids will live this truth and look back at you as 'poor dumb ole dad'"
The guy ACTUALLY changed his tune and started saying he wasn't sure.
Why did that make him change?
Because his politics told him to deny but his brain said not too. He didn't want his kid legacy to be that he was clueless.
This is fascinating. A disastrous legacy due to political need to be right at all costs! Wow!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung   02:06 PM on 8/18/2010
Great to know! The only other things I've found to have any impact at all on deniars are security risks and energy independence.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cyberfringe   10:17 PM on 8/12/2010
Educational and useful, especially for those of us who go hand-to-hand with the deniers: The website and iphone app called "Skeptical Science" at http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptical-science-iphone-app.html makes it easy to find excellent scientific evidence (with links to primary resources) to counter the most commonly heard/seen claims of climate change deniers.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung   12:54 PM on 8/11/2010
Stratospheric water vapor increases over the past half‐century
KH Rosenlof, SJ Oltmans, D Kley, JM Russell III, … - Geophysical research …, 2001 - agu.org
Ten data sets covering the period 1954–2000 are analyzed to show a 1%/yr increase in stratospheric water vapor. The trend has persisted for at least 45 years, hence is unlikely the result of a single event, but rather indicative of long‐term climate change.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001.../2000GL012502.shtml
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung   04:55 PM on 8/11/2010
guinganbresil:
"So, how does CO2 effect local temperature, pressure or humidity... It doesn't. It affects the SHAPE of the spectrum of OLR..."

His claim that "it doesn't" is not by any means established In fact, what we HAVE established in the "Missing Heat" thread, and in the thread http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/01/climategate-michael-mann-cleared_n_633207.html "Climategate Scientist Michael E. Mann Exonerated," is that

1a) all reliable OLR (outgoing longwave radiation) data are spectrally resolved, meaning specific to particular wavelengths linked to particular greenhouse gases
OR
1b) taken too irregularly, over too narrow a range of latitudes to extrapolate any total OLR trends to the entire Earth without very complicated analysis such as performed by Kevin Trenberth
OR
1c) 1a & 1b

2) The spectrally-resolved data, which are THE reliable data, clearly show increasing greenhouse effect, which is warming.

He has shown no trend in OLR that undermines any part of the scientific consensus: that CO₂ and other human-emitted greenhouse gases are dangerously warming the Earth. I have shown that the data gui has attempted to use to make that false claim are not adequate for that purpose. Gui already knows that what he's claiming here about OLR is false. To label one who habitually, knowingly utters false claims a "liar" is not argumentum ad hominem, it is a statement of fact.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/01/climategate-michael-mann-cleared_n_633207.html
photo
guinganbresil   11:10 PM on 8/18/2010
Here is an interesting discussion on adiabatic lapse rate:

http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/08/16/convection-venus-thought-experiments-and-tall-rooms-full-of-gas/

Note: ScienceofDoom is one of your sites... Recommended by SkepticalScience... It is a good read.
photo
Publicola   12:21 AM on 8/19/2010
Hey Gui, again:

Do elaborate on how the Greenhouse Effect not "real" in your mind "as advertised."
maxwells   01:24 PM on 8/19/2010
Here's an interesting discussion on Guiganbresil's moniker (vulgate spelling).

publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft4j49p00c&chunk.id=d0e4540&toc.id=d0e4169&toc.depth=1&brand=ucpress&anchor.id=bkd0e4657

"His world was reserved for the knights, and the despised vilain, also identified with the rising bourgeoisie so prominent in the regions of Champagne and Flanders, was its antithesis. Listen to Guiganbresil's sister insulting the burghers of the city: “Vilenaille, / chien anragé, pute servaille” (boors, rabid dogs, despicable slaves—Perceval: 5955 f.). In his encounter with a free town's burghers, Gauvain refuses to use his shield as too noble a piece of armor for such rabble (ibid. 5894 f.). He considers it the greatest insult to be taken for a merchant."

"This propaganda element, as it were, could then work back on reality, as it did when it fostered the fusion of nobility and knighthood..."

Thus, his namesake regarded himself as a soldier for the local oligarchy (currently the petro-princes of Saudi Arabia (who now own a significant %age of Faux News), .Russia, and Texas, their Wall St. backers, and more such ilk)

I.e., the irony never ceases.
photo
guinganbresil   09:22 AM on 8/23/2010
Ad nominem? Branching out I see...

If one reads your quote carefully, it is clear that it ("..his world...") refers to the poet Chretien de Troyes, who wrote a minor character Guinganbresil. Gawain (Gauvain) was another character - who I might add, was a scoundel protrayed by Chretien as a hero. The knight Guinganbresil was in mortal opposition to Gawain - yet defended him against a mob who wanted to do him in for dishonoring Guinganbresil's sister - he deserved a fair trial... (in those days of course, by combat...)
little old lady   11:44 PM on 8/08/2010
As we roll into this environmental catastrophe, the deniers just keep going. Are they not going to look at any valid current research? I just want to congratulate Publicola on his or her patience.
photo
Publicola   02:17 PM on 8/11/2010
Thanks LOL - patience is a necessary virtue when refuting science deniers.
photo
TheAssociator   11:32 AM on 8/08/2010
Here is my report of the same story: http://bit.ly/bYQIrt
photo
Publicola   10:02 AM on 8/03/2010
Der General: "The debated question remains, what is causing it? Is it a natural cycle, such as the earth has had for it's entire existence, or is man really causing it?"

So which of the following global warming science facts are you denying, Der General, and why?

* The Earth has warmed significantly over recent decades, to what may be the highest level in two thousand years or more.

* Anthropogenic greenhouse gases including CO2 -- which is generated mostly by fossil fuel burning -- warm the Earth. Without greenhouse gases including CO2 the Earth's temperature would be below freezing.

* Atmospheric CO2 has increased by more than a third since the dawn of the fossil fuel era, to the highest level in at least 800,000 years.

* The scientific evidence strongly indicates that said increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and there is no other viable scientific explanation for said atmospheric CO2 increase.

* There is a strong correlation between said atmospheric CO2 increase and said recent warming.

* Known natural forcing agents of past global warming - including changes in orbital cycles, increases in solar radiation, and natural increases in atmospheric CO2 - cannot explain said recent warming. Neither has any scientific theory to explain the bulk of said recent warming other than anthropogenic global warming (AGW) survived scientific scrutiny.

Again these are all scientific facts. Which is to say:

The scientific evidence supporting AGW is overwhelming.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SFTor   10:33 AM on 8/03/2010
The scientific evidence supporting AGW is overwhelming, except that we have two recent periods of warming in the mid 19th and early 20th centuries (before CO2 was a factor) that were identical both in rate and degree to the warming we see today. The temperatures we see today are normal for the Holocene, even a little low. Check any Greenland or Antarctic ice core.

Natural climate change happens over centuries and millennia. We are freaking out over changes we see over decades, even years and months. We are observing correlation but not necessarily causation.
photo
Publicola   11:03 AM on 8/03/2010
SFTor: "we have two recent periods of warming in the mid 19th and early 20th centuries (before CO2 was a factor)"

What data are you citing for the mid-19th century, which is before the global instrumental record?

Also: CO2 was a factor in the early 20th century, albeit a minor one. And a major factor in the early 20th century - increased solar radiative output as averaged over several decades - is a minor factor at best with respect to recent warming as it has essentially flat over recent decades.

Again:

Known natural forcing agents of past global warming - including changes in orbital cycles, increases in solar radiation, and natural increases in atmospheric CO2 - cannot explain said recent warming. Neither has any scientific theory to explain the bulk of said recent warming other than anthropogenic global warming survived scientific scrutiny.
photo
Publicola   11:34 AM on 8/03/2010
SFTor: "The scientific evidence supporting AGW is overwhelming, except that we have two recent periods of warming in the mid 19th and early 20th centuries (before CO2 was a factor) that were identical both in rate and degree to the warming we see today"

The was a short warming trend between ~1860-1880 - too short to draw reliable scientific inferences from, and also the instrumental record is less reliable as there were for fewer stations.

The early 20th century warming trend, when CO2 played a minor role, is longer and the data is more reliable - including that we know that solar radiation, which was increasing over that time period - played a major role. Compare with recent warming, where we know that the solar radiation trend has remained essentially flat.

SFTor: "The temperatures we see today are normal for the Holocene, even a little low."

The pre-industrial-era temperature record for the Holocene was, generally speaking, warming out of the last global period until the Holocene Climatic Optimum of 6-8 thousand years ago, and then slow cooling since then. The warming of recent decades has sharply reversed that trend.

We are observing correlation but not necessarily causation."

SFTor: "One could say the same about smoking and cancer, and indeed vested interests did for decades after the scientific evidence that smoking causes cancer was overwhelming.

Today, the scientific evidence that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming is overwhelming.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung   05:02 PM on 8/11/2010
Cite the source(s) on which you base your claims that "recent periods of warming in the mid 19th and early 20th centuries ... were identical both in rate and degree to the warming we see today."
photo
guinganbresil   02:06 AM on 8/04/2010
"Without greenhouse gases including CO2 the Earth's temperature would be below freezing."

Look for yourself... Keeping all else constant, and removing GHG's (except H2O), drops the temperature by 7-9 C depending on time of year and cloud model. On average, the Earth's temperature would not be below zero.

http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/Projects/modtran.orig.html

Look at Iout for standard conditions, zero out the GHG's, then add a negative surface temperature offset to restore Iout...

Please correct me if I am wrong...
photo
Publicola   01:27 PM on 8/04/2010
guinganbresil,

Your question is based on a physically impossible premise - one cannot remove other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere while keeping atmospheric H2O constant.

But you knew that... right?

Speaking of:

Please answer this directly related question that you have refused to answer several times now:

You still apparently seem to be unclear of the basic scientific fact that water vapor is a feedback and not a driver of relatively long term (mutlidecadal) global temperature change.

Is that correct, despite all of the time you have spent on this subject?

Again please answer this question. which I have repeatedly asked you and you have repeatedly evaded and ignored - thanks.
photo
guinganbresil   09:12 PM on 8/04/2010
I did qualify my statement with "Keeping all else constant..."

The POINT being that your statement that the Earth's temperature would drop to -18C needs a little more support.

I KNOW that all the water will freeze out of the atmosphere because the temperature w/o GHG's drops to ~6 C... Wait that is above freezing...

I also know that increased snow cover will increase the Earth's albedo... Lowering the effective radiating temperature of the planet... (mitigating heat loss)

The change in energy deposition in the atmosphere might increase cloud cover... trapping more heat (non gas GH), and increasing albedo...

Who knows...? Do you have a reliable source?
photo
guinganbresil   09:21 PM on 8/04/2010
I have never refused to answer your H2O question... ("refused" sounds like "I won't answer that...")

I understand that it is SAID that it is a "basic scientific fact" that water is a feedback and not a driver of multidecadal global temperature change.

1 - The effect of H2O is MUCH larger than the effect of CO2.
2 - The effect of H2O involves all three phases - not just the vapor phase.
3 - The effect of H2O impacts both albedo AND OLR.
4 - The effect of H2O is coupled with the oceans...
5 - The effect of H2O is very sensitive to local conditions
6 - The effects of H2O appears to be a chaotic response to local temperature/pressure/humidity - weather - aggregated over the globe and over time to form climate...

So, how does CO2 effect local temperature, pressure or humidity... It doesn't. It affects the SHAPE of the spectrum of OLR...
photo
Publicola   12:11 PM on 8/05/2010
Gui: "I did qualify my statement with 'Keeping all else constant...' "

And again it is physically impossible to remove all greenhouse gases from the atmosphere while keeping the atmosphercic H2O concentration constant.

Gui: "The POINT being that your statement that the Earth's temperature would drop to -18C needs a little more support."

Does the SStefan-Boltzman Law of Physics qualify as "a little more support" to you?

http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/

Gui: "I have never refused to answer your H2O question."

You repeatedly did not answer the question, which is refusal.

Gui: "I understand that it is SAID that it is a "basic scientific fact" that water is a feedback and not a driver of multidecadal global temperature change."

Can you name even one reputable atmospheric scientist who says otherwise?

Also: do you disagee that water is a feedback and not a driver (technically speaking: a "forcing agent") of multidecadal global temperature change?

Gui: "The effect of H2O is MUCH larger than the effect of CO2."

CO2 *alone*, yes. The two cannot be separated, however, since increased atmospheric CO2 means increased atmospheric water vapor.

Gui: "So, how does CO2 effect local temperature, pressure or humidity... It doesn't."

Where do you get that ridiculous notion from?
photo
guinganbresil   04:15 PM on 8/07/2010
"You repeatedly did not answer the question, which is refusal." - I do have a day job...

"The two cannot be separated, however, since increased atmospheric CO2 means increased atmospheric water vapor."...

How it that? Does it catalyze a chemical reaction evolving H2O? Does it induce increased evaporation? If so how? Aahhh... by increasing temperature!
ANGEL53545   10:36 PM on 8/02/2010
IFTHE EARTH IS WARMING WHERE ARE ALL THE HURRICANES HURRICANES ARE NATURES WAY OF COOLING THE PLANET.
photo
DocSkull   11:28 PM on 8/02/2010
"Hurricanes are nature's way of cooling the planet."

How do hurricanes cool the planet?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SFTor   09:57 PM on 8/02/2010
'"What this data is doing is, it is screaming that the world is warming," Thorne concluded.'

Sure thing. It is screaming that the world is warming a little, after it was pretty darn cold for a long time.

Is there less ice and snow today than during the Little Ice Age, and presumably even during the 1940s to 1970s?

Most likely. Is that a bad thing?
photo
Publicola   11:07 PM on 8/02/2010
SFTor: "Is that a bad thing?"

From Congressional testimony by climatologist Dr. Susan Solomon, March 2009:

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

By about the end of the 21st century, carbon dioxide concentrations could become as high as 1000 parts per million if emissions worldwide continue rising at a rate typical of the last decade, which is about 2% per year. The best current science implies that with a sustained level of 1000 ppmv of carbon dioxide, an average day would become about 10°F warmer than today, which corresponds to a greatly changed climate.

Heat waves as bad or worse than the worst current heat waves (such as the one in Europe in 2003 that led to the deaths of more than 10000 people) would become common. There is now increased confidence that decreased rainfall can be expected as the world warms in parts of southwestern North America, west Australia, southern Europe, and both northern and southern Africa. Droughts comparable to the dust bowl can be expected to occur in the future not just occasionally in limited regions, but in all of these places and at the same time. Many of the world’s most desolate deserts would expand as semi-arid soils dry out.

Glaciers and snowpack that provide water to at least a billion people would disappear. Fires would become more common in these dry regions, and fire frequency is also expected to increase in many locations that are dependent upon snowpack for their water supply, such as much of California.

continued...
photo
Publicola   11:20 PM on 8/02/2010
continued...

All of these impacts are based on physical processes that are well understood, and represent aspects of the science for which confidence is very high. ...

Sea level rose by about 6 inches in the 20th century... It is well established that water expands when heated [and] that small glaciers worldwide have lost mass as the world has warmed, supplying more liquid water to the ocean and contributing to sea level rise. These two processes are well understand and can be expected to produce up to 3 feet of sea level rise within about the next two to three centuries if carbon dioxide continues to increase. Three feet of sea level rise would inundate many small islands and low lying coastal regions, such as Florida, and this is already becoming part of coastal planning in many regions.

A third process may be very important but is very poorly understood, rapid flow on the great ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland... The total contribution to sea level rise... could be on the order of a few meters over centuries, but is very uncertain.

http://www.legislative.noaa.gov/Testimony/solomon031709.pdf
photo
chrisd3   07:00 AM on 8/03/2010
"It is screaming that the world is warming a little, after it was pretty darn cold for a long time."

Why is it warming? What's the physical cause?

And don't just say "natural cycles." Natural cycles have causes too.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SFTor   10:25 AM on 8/03/2010
Why is it warming? Natural processes that we do not as yet understand completely, but almost certainly associated with interactions between cosmic rays caused by sunspot activity, evaporation, ocean currents, and sunspots.

Sorry I can't be more specific, but neither can anyone else.

Does increased CO2 play a role in today's warming? Possibly, and probably.

How will the biosphere react to this increased CO2 over the long term? We don't know. With some warming perhaps. The result may also be accelerating warming, or nothing much at all, depending on whether climate feedbacks are positive or negative.
photo
Publicola   11:07 AM on 8/03/2010
SFTor: "Why is it warming? Natural processes..."

Per the science the bulk of recent warming is very likely NOT a natural process.

Again:

SFTor: "that we do not as yet understand completely"

We do not understand ANY science "completely".

, but almost certainly associated with interactions between cosmic rays caused by sunspot activity, evaporation, ocean currents, and sunspots.
photo
Publicola   11:15 AM on 8/03/2010
SFTor: "Why is it warming? Natural processes..."

Per the science the bulk of recent warming is very likely NOT a natural process.

Again:

Known natural forcing agents of past global warming - including changes in orbital cycles, increases in solar radiation, and natural increases in atmospheric CO2 - cannot explain said recent warming. Neither has any scientific theory to explain the bulk of said recent warming other than anthropogenic global warming survived scientific scrutiny.

SFTor: "that we do not as yet understand completely"

We do not understand ANY science "completely".

SFTor: "but almost certainly associated with interactions between cosmic rays caused by sunspot activity... and sunspots."

Solar and cosmic ray activity have remained essentially flat over recent decades, and thus cannot explain the bulk of recent warming, .

SFTor: "ocean currents,"

Ocean currents cannot explain the recent multi-decade warming trend either.

SFTor: "evaporation,"

Now you're getting somewhere - increased atmospheric greenhouse gases induce increased evaporation.

SFTor: "Sorry I can't be more specific, but neither can anyone else"

Sorry, you are again wrong: climate scientists can and do get *far* more specific, including demonstrating via by direct measurement that Solar and cosmic ray activity cannnot explain the bulk of recent warming while AGW theory can and does.
Kenz300   06:09 PM on 8/02/2010
What will it take for the Republican propaganda machine to realize that we need to
move to alternative energy for our economic and national security. Wind, solar, geothermal
and biofuels are all advancing their technologies and reducing their cost.

It is time the party of NO got with the program and started doing what is best for the long
term health of our nation. They are so wrapped up with their lobbyists, donors and the
right wing propaganda machine that they would rather see our economy collapse and
President Obama fail than do what is right for the country.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung   12:30 PM on 8/10/2010
Indictment for felony conspiracy to defraud U.S. taxpayers on the basis of falsified, pseudo-scientific propaganda.

"What will it take for the Republican propaganda machine to realize that we need to
move to alternative energy for our economic and national security."

At a minimum, it will take several indictments on felony charges of conspiracy to defraud the federal government, to "convince" the hired mouth lobbyists that the six figures they're receiving for the lies they're telling about climate science are not worth the risk.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cyberfringe   10:26 PM on 8/12/2010
The GOP is so suborned to big business that it will never support what you ask because to do so would cost their corporate backers billions upon billions of dollars. Their interests are short term and limited to staying in positions of power and regaining dominance of Congress and the White House. Frankly, I think of them as borderline treasonous because of their abject failure to protect the long term interests of the people of the US.
Richard2   05:30 PM on 8/02/2010
CNN actually notices that some people don't agree with this climate report, and provide their feedback. This is a welcome change in the mainstream media:

"Myron Ebell, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute in the US, said the new report would not change people's minds. "It's clear that the scientific case for global warming alarmism is weak. The scientific case for [many of the claims] is unsound and we are finding out all the time how unsound it is."

Pat Michaels, a prominent climate skeptic, ex-professor of environmental sciences and fellow of the Cato Institute in the US, said the NOAA study and other evidence suggested that the computerized climate models had overestimated the sensitivity of the earth's temperature to carbon dioxide. This would mean that the earth could warm a little under the influence of greenhouse gases, but not by as much as the IPCC and others have predicted.

"I think it is the lack of frankness about this that emerged with Climategate, and that seems to continue [that make people doubt the findings]," he said.

Steve Goddard, a blogger, said the conclusion that the first half of 2010 showed a record high temperature was "based on incorrect, fabricated data" because the researchers involved did not have access to much information on Arctic temperatures."
photo
DocSkull   07:41 PM on 8/02/2010
Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute? Isn't there any opinion against the science that doesn't come from a soft-money think tank funded by energy companies?

Even the statement by the blogger is self-contradicting. He says that the data was "incorrect, fabricated" because he felt there wasn't enough for the arctic. Even if that was based on the truth, which it isn't, insufficient data isn't "incorrect" or "fabricated" you just want more of it.

In short, there is no need to include the opinions of paid shills and dumb statements by by-standers.
gallon   10:47 AM on 8/03/2010
Since you bring up the term 'mainstream media', I think it is high time that anyone who continuously boasts about their high ratings should also include themselves as mainstream media.

Richard, you continue to select data points of convenience to your cause. When you connect the dots with those special data points of course you see the picture you wish to see. Science has to see all the points, tossing outlieing points away. This is why your picture is always different than Sciences picture. One can only conclude that a) your logic has a problem, or b) you are deliberately trolling and spamming. I would prefer to believe a) but I am not sure of it.
photo
chrisd3   12:35 PM on 8/03/2010
Two conservative think tankers and an amateur blogger. WHY do you guys have so much trouble coming up with arguments from independent climate scientists?
mokshasha   03:38 PM on 8/02/2010
why was my comment not posted?? this is a VALID comment that just happens to disagree with the article - or at least offer a different viewpoint -

31,000+ other scientists disagree - see: petitionproject.org
photo
DocSkull   05:26 PM on 8/02/2010
What is the name of a petitioner with expertise in climatology?
photo
chrisd3   07:06 AM on 8/03/2010
Many of those "scientists" are actually engineers, weathermen, nurses, doctors, veterinarians, and the like. Almost none of them are climate scientists. It's a PR stunt, period.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cyberfringe   10:29 PM on 8/12/2010
Fanned for this and other good posts. You actually made the effort to look at his link too, which tells me you are thoughtful. We're not in Frostbite Falls anymore!
Kenz300   11:46 AM on 8/02/2010
People need to demand that our politicians support a transition to alternative energy.

Our economic and national security depend on it.

Wind, solar and biofuels all need greater public support.
photo
DocSkull   12:01 PM on 8/02/2010
The public are for it, the blockage is our representatives who depend on energy industry donations.
photo
Alhitch   10:21 AM on 8/02/2010
Headline-grabbing disaster scenarios forecast for 50 or 100 years in the future are the product of speculation, assumptions, unreliable computer models, and articles by climate activists falsely presented as peer-reviewed scientific papers in IPCC reports, news stories and political speeches. They are not supported by actual data and observations regarding historic and current global temperatures, ice caps, glaciers, sea levels, rainforests or cyclical weather patterns. The issue has become completely political and has lost all ties to "science". With the left in control the "remedy" is all too predictable.....attack capitalism and the American way of life with ornerous taxes and mandates. Energy taxes and subsidies and renewable energy mandates will cause soaring prices for everything we need – and have severe negative impacts on families, businesses, jobs, opportunities, living standards and basic civil rights. Obama is already waging war on domestic oil production and is in effect killing thousands of high paying jobs. His message to displaced oil field workers is simple: "Put on your little Obama hats and take $8 an hour jobs at one of my government subsidized solar panel factories...and shut the he11 up!"
photo
DocSkull   10:45 AM on 8/02/2010
"unreliable computer models"

Unless you explain how computer models are unreliable you are just making a bunch of empty accusations.

In fact, I'm going to cut to the chase and call you a liar.
photo
Alhitch   10:59 AM on 8/02/2010
Climate computer models miraculously mirror exactly what the person compsing the code believes....imagine that!
photo
Publicola   01:50 PM on 8/02/2010
Alhitch: "Climate computer models miraculously mirror exactly what the person compsing the code believes....imagine that!"

Some people lie on the internet, and other people *unskeptically* parrot those lies....imagine that!
photo
Der General   03:19 PM on 8/02/2010
You can call him a liar- that would be a typical knee-jerk accusation from a typical bomb-thrower. One of my close friends is a PhD in Meteorology, with plenty of modeling experience... and HE doesn't trust the current models to accurately forecast much of anything. Too easily manipulated, he says. Too many variables, too many dynamics, too much unknown. I'd recommend that all "smart guys" be skeptical of anything that has as many conflicts of interest as the "science" behind Global Warming.
photo
Publicola   11:00 PM on 8/02/2010
Der General: "One of my close friends is a PhD in Meteorology, with plenty of modeling experience... and HE doesn't trust the current models to accurately forecast much of anything."

Good for him. Is your friend aware that climate models correctly predicted increased global warming over recent decades?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cyberfringe   10:31 PM on 8/12/2010
Fanned for calling it like it is.
BlackbirdHighway   12:40 PM on 8/02/2010
No computer modeling needed. Just shine a heat lamp at two boxes of air. They both heat up the same. Now add CO2 to one box. That one gets hotter. There is nothing unreliable about it. You can repeat this experiment 1000 times and get the same result 1000 times.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ScapeGoat   03:09 PM on 8/02/2010
For the ignorant:
Computer models are based on past information and events. Once a model is made, it is tested against real life scenarios.
If the computer model does not match the facts, it is investigated to find the reason it does not match and then the program is changed to match the facts. In this way, the computer model is refined and updated to reflect what happens in reality. It also helps scientists to see interactions between different elements and to understand what exactly is happening.
Thus, projections into the future based on the current knowledge tends to be very reliable. If for some reason, the projection does not match reality (as already pointed out) the model is up dated.

Now, you can go back to regurgitating the pabulum you learned on fake news and "scientists" bought and paid for by the oil industry.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SFTor   03:33 AM on 8/04/2010
No, that is not the case. Models can be adjusted and backtest (reproduce past events) very well, but this does not mean that they improve their predictive skill, i.e. their ability to predict future events.

Global climate is a coupled, non-linear chaotic system. It is extremely hard to predict.
photo
Publicola   01:46 PM on 8/04/2010
SFTor: "Global climate... is extremely hard to predict."

Really. So how is it then that AGW theory and global climate models correctly predicted global warming over recent decades?
photo
StephenBP   07:44 PM on 8/02/2010
Basically, you are just repeating stuff that you've picked up somewhere. Do you know how much the fossil fuel industry spends on disinformation on this issue? And why wouldn't they.... they are a 9 Trillion dollar industry, and scientists are showing that the hidden costs of the fossil fuel business is unsupportable. So these ruthless businessmen are attacking the scientists.

I'm a liberal, and I've owned two businesses. BTW. How many have you owned? And the American way of life? You mean teepees and hunting buffalo and bear, and growing corn and living with nature instead constantly trying to kill it?

Following the fossil fuel companies like a small animal following the Pied Piper will not make America stronger, friend.
gallon   10:50 AM on 8/03/2010
Proof by assertion, Hitch? Lots of emotionally charged accusations in your statement there.
That probably works pretty well with the wingnut crowd, hey?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ScapeGoat   09:06 AM on 8/02/2010
It's so much fun to come to this post and watch all the trolls come out from under their bridge to deny the obvious.
photo
getoffmedz   10:19 AM on 8/02/2010
Please don't taunt FFI trolls who are paid by each individual word like last insane.

Thanks.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dragonmaster   08:27 AM on 8/02/2010
It should prove to be very interesting to see what the soaring amount of CO2 does this decade to our warming planet.

Baring a mega volcanic event or hit by an asteroid -extreme weather-that becomes increasingly disruptive to human activity should become more common.

Twitter Edition