iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Climate Change Predictions Supported By Summer Of Fires, Floods And Heat Waves: IPCC

CHARLES J. HANLEY   08/12/10 04:20 PM ET   AP

Russia Fires

NEW YORK — Floods, fires, melting ice and feverish heat: From smoke-choked Moscow to water-soaked Iowa and the High Arctic, the planet seems to be having a midsummer breakdown. It's not just a portent of things to come, scientists say, but a sign of troubling climate change already under way.

The weather-related cataclysms of July and August fit patterns predicted by climate scientists, the Geneva-based World Meteorological Organization says – although those scientists always shy from tying individual disasters directly to global warming.

The experts now see an urgent need for better ways to forecast extreme events like Russia's heat wave and wildfires and the record deluge devastating Pakistan. They'll discuss such tools in meetings this month and next in Europe and America, under United Nations, U.S. and British government sponsorship.

"There is no time to waste," because societies must be equipped to deal with global warming, says British government climatologist Peter Stott.

He said modelers of climate systems are "very keen" to develop supercomputer modeling that would enable more detailed linking of cause and effect as a warming world shifts jet streams and other atmospheric currents. Those changes can wreak weather havoc.

The U.N.'s network of climate scientists – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – has long predicted that rising global temperatures would produce more frequent and intense heat waves, and more intense rainfalls. In its latest assessment, in 2007, the Nobel Prize-winning panel went beyond that. It said these trends "have already been observed," in an increase in heat waves since 1950, for example.

Still, climatologists generally refrain from blaming warming for this drought or that flood, since so many other factors also affect the day's weather.

Stott and NASA's Gavin Schmidt, at the Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York, said it's better to think in terms of odds: Warming might double the chances for heat waves, for example. "That is exactly what's happening," Schmidt said, "a lot more warm extremes and less cold extremes."

The WMO pointed out that this summer's events fit the international scientists' projections of "more frequent and more intense extreme weather events due to global warming."

In fact, in key cases they're a perfect fit:

RUSSIA

It's been the hottest summer ever recorded in Russia, with Moscow temperatures topping 100 degrees Fahrenheit (37.8 degrees C) for the first time. Russia's drought has sparked hundreds of wildfires in forests and dried peat bogs, blanketing Moscow with a toxic smog that finally lifted Thursday after six days. The Russian capital's death rate doubled to 700 people a day at one point. The drought reduced the wheat harvest by more than one-third.

The 2007 IPCC report predicted a doubling of disastrous droughts in Russia this century and cited studies foreseeing catastrophic fires during dry years. It also said Russia would suffer large crop losses.

PAKISTAN

The heaviest monsoon rains on record – 12 inches (300 millimeters) in one 36-hour period – have sent rivers rampaging over huge swaths of countryside, flooding thousands of villages. It has left 14 million Pakistanis homeless or otherwise affected, and killed 1,500. The government calls it the worst natural disaster in the nation's history.

A warmer atmosphere can hold – and discharge – more water. The 2007 IPCC report said rains have grown heavier for 40 years over north Pakistan and predicted greater flooding this century in south Asia's monsoon region.

CHINA

China is witnessing its worst floods in decades, the WMO says, particularly in the northwest province of Gansu. There, floods and landslides last weekend killed at least 1,100 people and left more than 600 missing, feared swept away or buried beneath mud and debris.

The IPCC reported in 2007 that rains had increased in northwest China by up to 33 percent since 1961, and floods nationwide had increased sevenfold since the 1950s. It predicted still more frequent flooding this century.

UNITED STATES

In Iowa, soaked by its wettest 36-month period in 127 years of recordkeeping, floodwaters from three nights of rain this week forced hundreds from their homes and killed a 16-year-old girl.

The international climate panel projected increased U.S. precipitation this century – except for the Southwest – and more extreme rain events causing flooding.

ARCTIC

Researchers last week spotted a 100-square-mile (260-square-kilometer) chunk of ice calved off from the great Petermann Glacier in Greenland's far northwest. It was the most massive ice island to break away in the Arctic in a half-century of observation.

The huge iceberg appeared just five months after an international scientific team published a report saying ice loss from the Greenland ice sheet is expanding up its northwest coast from the south.

Changes in the ice sheet "are happening fast, and we are definitely losing more ice mass than we had anticipated," said one of the scientists, NASA's Isabella Velicogna.

In the Arctic Ocean itself, the summer melt of the vast ice cap has reached unprecedented proportions in recent years. Satellite data show the ocean area covered by ice last month was the second-lowest ever recorded for July.

The melting of land ice into the oceans is causing about 60 percent of the accelerating rise in sea levels worldwide, with thermal expansion from warming waters causing the rest. The WMO'S World Climate Research Program says seas are rising by 1.34 inches (34 millimeters) per decade, about twice the 20th century's average.

Worldwide temperature readings, meanwhile, show that this January-June was the hottest first half of a year since recordkeeping began in the mid-19th century. Meteorologists say 17 nations have recorded all-time-high temperatures in 2010, more than in any other year.

Scientists blame the warming on carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases pouring into the atmosphere from power plants, cars and trucks, furnaces and other fossil fuel-burning industrial and residential sources.

Experts are growing ever more vocal in urging sharp cutbacks in emissions, to protect the climate that has nurtured modern civilization.

"Reducing emissions is something everyone is capable of," Nanjing-based climatologist Tao Li told an academic journal in China, now the world's No. 1 emitter, ahead of the U.S.

But not everyone is willing to act.

The U.S. remains the only major industrialized nation not to have legislated caps on carbon emissions, after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid last week withdrew climate legislation in the face of resistance from Republicans and some Democrats.

The U.S. inaction, dating back to the 1990s, is a key reason global talks have bogged down for a pact to succeed the expiring Kyoto Protocol. That is the relatively weak accord on emissions cuts adhered to by all other industrialized states.

Governments around the world, especially in poorer nations that will be hard-hit, are scrambling to find ways and money to adapt to shifts in climate and rising seas.

The meetings of climatologists in the coming weeks in Paris, Britain and Colorado will be one step toward adaptation, seeking ways to identify trends in extreme events and better means of forecasting them.

A U.N. specialist in natural disasters says much more needs to be done.

Salvano Briceno of the U.N.'s International Strategy for Disaster Reduction pointed to aggravating factors in the latest climate catastrophes: China's failure to stem deforestation, contributing to its deadly mudslides; Russia's poor forest management, feeding fires; and the settling of poor Pakistanis on flood plains and dry riverbeds in the densely populated country, squatters' turf that suddenly turned into torrents.

"The IPCC has already identified the influence of climate change in these disasters. That's clear," Briceno said. "But the main trend we need to look at is increasing vulnerability, the fact we have more people living in the wrong places, doing the wrong things."

___

AP Correspondents Michael J. Crumb in Des Moines, Iowa, and Christopher Bodeen in Beijing contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

NEW YORK — Floods, fires, melting ice and feverish heat: From smoke-choked Moscow to water-soaked Iowa and the High Arctic, the planet seems to be having a midsummer breakdown. It's not just a p...
NEW YORK — Floods, fires, melting ice and feverish heat: From smoke-choked Moscow to water-soaked Iowa and the High Arctic, the planet seems to be having a midsummer breakdown. It's not just a p...
Filed by Travis Donovan  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 146
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
09:05 AM on 09/04/2010
Perhaps if the doubt casters like Richard2 could ever learn the significance of a Global Average temperature, they wouldn’t cite extreme, localized anomalies, WHICH ARE NOT BIG ENOUGH TO CHANGE THE GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE. Terrible as the South American cold snap sounds, it is not big enough to change the whole global average temperature, which is still above average. Are you capable of understanding that?????
Note to deniers….. nowhere in the “Official” Global Warming “Creed” does it say that the temperature every point on the globe will be hotter than the daily average recorded temperature for each point on every day at every minute. If that were truly the Global warmist “line” then denialists would be quite correct in calling out the warmists on that point.
But the only ones saying global warming requires every point on the globe to be anomalously high simultaneously are the denialists who set up this straw man and knock it down day after day.
Trying to reason with people who do not respect reason or basic arithmetic is hopeless. So what is left? Gentle persuasion? Education?
How about the sanitizing effects of sunlight...deniers should have the common decency to state their motivations and associations, should state why they continue to throw unscientific mud at scientists. Why? Why do they hate science? Why? Maybe, of course, they don't hate science. They simply love the monetary reward or ideological security that they get from posting nonsense.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
08:03 PM on 08/29/2010
Moscow weather today: 55 degrees F, and raining. Hope the rain eliminates the danger of more fires this summer, and washes the smell of ash from the buildings and streets.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:21 AM on 08/30/2010
13 posts Sunday,.all denying global warming and its impacts. Richard2's mini-vacay must've cut into his quota.

www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Richard2?action=comments
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
emilyNC
05:55 PM on 08/26/2010
Dear Richard and other people who claim that since last week was cooler, there's no climate change problem:
Weather is not synonymous with climate. The term 'global warming' was the original term, which has remained in vogue, which describes the first-noticed trend (increasing overall global temperatures). Since the mid-1970s when 'global warming' began being studied, we have discovered other alarming trends. One of these is more chaotic weather patterns. It may be that we should choose a more descriptive terminology to describe the climate issues we are now dealing with, but your attempts to cling to a historical term are only that, and have absolutely no relevance in 2010, when we know quite well that we're dealing with unpredictable weather patterns in the short term and warmer overall climate in the long term. Please grow up. Thank you :)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
10:32 PM on 08/27/2010
Nature Magazine writes about the cold weather in South America:

"With high Andean peaks and a humid tropical forest, Bolivia is a country of ecological extremes. But during the Southern Hemisphere's recent winter, unusually low temperatures in part of the country's tropical region hit freshwater species hard, killing an estimated 6 million fish and thousands of alligators, turtles and river dolphins.

Scientists who have visited the affected rivers say the event is the biggest ecological disaster Bolivia has known, and, as an example of a sudden climatic change wreaking havoc on wildlife, it is unprecedented in recorded history."

IThe author was fortunate that that "Global Warming" was morphed into "Climate Change." Otherwise, that last sentence in the Nature article would end as follows:

"As an example of a sudden global warming wrecking havoc on wildlife, it is unprecedented in recorded history."
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:48 PM on 08/25/2010
Judging from the following graph, across the U.S. and over several decades the ratio of extreme highs to extreme lows in temperature has been increasing fairly steadily.

www.skepticalscience.com/nasa-giss-what-global-warming-looks-like.html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:43 PM on 08/25/2010
Judging from the following graph, across the U.S. and over several decades the ratio of extreme highs to extreme lows in temperature has been increasing fairly steadily.

www.skepticalscience.com/nasa-giss-what-global-warming-looks-like.html
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
11:18 PM on 08/22/2010
NOAA's conclusion regarding the Moscow heat is slightly different:

"Whereas an event of this magnitude was unexpected for the summer of 2010, and indeed there was little if any advance warming from long lead seasonal forecasts, it is nonetheless important to assess the factors that may have been responsible for such an extreme heat wave. There is strong evidence that the immediate cause can be placed at the doorstep of an extreme pattern of atmospheric winds---widely referred to as blocking. In the situation of anticyclonic blocking such as developed over western Russia in early July 2010, the normal west-to-east movement of weather systems is inhibited, with the center of a blocking experiencing persistently quiescent weather."
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:01 PM on 08/23/2010
As is chronic with Richard2, he totally ignores the underlying point of this exercise, which is that, with each ensuing decade, such extreme high temperatures have been steadily increasing in frequency, as the following link clearly shows:

www.skepticalscience.com/nasa-giss-what-global-warming-looks-like.html

Then again, we expect nothing more from Richard2, since nearly all of his more than 1,500 posts since he began posting on HuffPo on Feb. 18th, 2009 have all been essentially denials of anthropogenic climate change. If anyone can find even 3 of his posts that aren't of that nature, air them because we'd like to see it.

Who but a PAID TROLL would post exclusively on one and only one topic?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:51 PM on 08/23/2010
Meanwhile, the abstract from Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 36, L23701, says:

"Relative increase of record high maximum temperatures compared to record low minimum temperatures in the U.S.

by Gerald A. Meehl, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA
Claudia Tebaldi, Climate Central, Princeton, New Jersey, USA
Guy Walton, The Weather Channel, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
David Easterling, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina, USA, and
Larry McDaniel, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA"

"The current observed value of the ratio of daily record high maximum temperatures to record low minimum temperatures averaged across the U.S. is about two to one. This is because records that were declining uniformly earlier in the 20th century following a decay proportional to 1/n (n being the number of years since the beginning of record keeping) have been declining less slowly for record highs than record lows since the late 1970s. Model simulations of U.S. 20th century climate show a greater ratio of about four to one due to more uniform warming across the U.S. than in observations. Following an A1B emission scenario for the 21st century, the U.S. ratio of record high maximum to record low minimum temperatures is projected to continue to increase, with ratios of about 20 to 1 by mid‐century, and roughly 50 to 1 by the end of the century."

europa.agu.org/?view=article&uri=/journals/gl/gl0923/2009GL040736/2009GL040736.xml&t=meehl
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
08:38 AM on 08/20/2010
Here is how I picture a global "cooler's " thinking is influenced....

Their political party is run by big oil.
Their TV [“news”] network is owned by big oil supporters.
Their TV [“news”] network supports their political party.
Big Oil believes that belief in global warming reduces their profits.
Their TV [“news”] network is their daily proxy for authoritative information.
Their TV ["news"] network discourages belief in human influenced global warming.
Scientists’ views, unless they come from their TV [“news”] network have no authority.

Is it any surprise then that people belonging to the party of big oil are unlikely to see the concept that mankind causes global warming in anything but a distorted way?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean temperature, obviously INCREASING
02:43 PM on 08/20/2010
It's no surprise at all, and it means there's probably no way to gain support for clean energy other than campaigning for Green Jobs (emphasis on jobs) and national security. About 50% already support clean energy for environmental reasons. If different arguments have to be used to get past 50% then I guess that's what we must do. Regrettably, I have to give credit to Frank Luntz for this reasoning, but I hear he is good at the scummy job that he does.
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
08:26 AM on 08/20/2010
Consider the point of view of a global “cooler”......

"My political party is run by big oil.
My TV [“news”] network is owned by big oil supporters.
My TV [“news”] network supports my political party.
Big Oil believes that belief in global warming reduces their profits.
My TV [“news”] network is my daily proxy for authoritative information.
My TV ["news"] network discourages belief in human influenced global warming.
Scientists’ views, unless they come from my TV [“news”] network have no authority."

Is it any surprise then that people belonging to the party of big oil are unlikely to have any reasonable possibility of even being allowed to wonder if mankind causes global warming?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
02:04 PM on 08/18/2010
This article implies that weather is really climate change. However, last winter, when the Northern Hemisphere was very cold, weather wasn't allowed to be climate.
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
04:52 PM on 08/18/2010
"...last winter, when the Northern Hemisphere was very cold, weather wasn't allowed to be climate."

The northern hemisphere wasn't very cold last year. There was a lot of snow in the northeast US, but that means that there was lots of water vapor, not that is was unusually cold. It only has to be below freezing to get snow, colder temperatures don't necessarily mean more snow.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
06:21 PM on 08/18/2010
More trolling. What about it HP?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean temperature, obviously INCREASING
12:12 AM on 08/20/2010
Nothing happens if you don't Flag them.
12:35 PM on 08/20/2010
Yeah, c'mon -- quash the perspectives of all but the true believers. That is the American way!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
04:18 PM on 08/17/2010
Basically the IPCC network of climate experts did not provide any useful predictive information that would have assisted any of the regions of the world to prepare for the severe weather events that have occurred this year.

The IPCC has been worried about what possibly might happen in 100 years, not what is happening in 2010. The IPCC doesn't exist to help any people on the planet who are living here today.

The money that was wasted on the IPCC's past efforts is gone. Funds projected to go to the IPCC in the future should be transferred to efforts to help people living in today's world endure and survive severe weather events.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
04:45 PM on 08/17/2010
Oh look, R2 yet again falsely conflates climate with weather.

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

Who pays you to incessantly post global warming science disinformation here on HuffPo, R2?
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
09:50 AM on 08/18/2010
This is just plain trolling.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
03:57 PM on 08/17/2010
Seriously,

Did any government agency predict that the temperature in the north polar region would be the lowest since satellites began recording data? Did any government agency predict that parts of South America would see the coldest temperatures in 50 years?

People need to develop skill at evaluating predictions of the future. It is easy to say that somewhere the temperature will be the hottest in 100 years, and somewhere it will be the coldest in 100 years. Humans occupy thousands of cities and towns. New records are set all the time.

Its kind of like the stock market forecaster who predicts that stock prices will rise, or go down, maybe!
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
04:46 PM on 08/17/2010
Oh look, R2 yet again falsely conflates climate with weather.

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

Who pays you to incessantly post global warming science disinformation here on HuffPo, R2?
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
09:51 AM on 08/18/2010
Trolling along. This is ok HP?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean temperature, obviously INCREASING
12:15 AM on 08/20/2010
Not so much, on most other topics. In the "Media" section, you're expected to make fun of certain celebs, and in the "front page" story, when it gets past a few thousand comments and a a few hundred per minute, then the mods pretty much give up. But no other serious topic allows as much bs as climate. Because none of the mods knows what's true and what's false, like U.S. voters, perhaps?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dbmetzger
12:22 PM on 08/17/2010
Report Predicts More Extreme Heat
The US space agency NASA says this year has been the warmest for the earth in 131 years. And a new study of hot weather in the US released by the National Wildlife Federation predicts that extreme heat will be the norm by 2050. http://www.newslook.com/videos/241958-report-predicts-more-extreme-heat?autoplay=true
12:19 PM on 08/15/2010
An excerpt from WorldChanging Team:
Can Cattle Save Us From Global Warming? August 8, 2008 8:06 AM
A small band of activists and scientists believe that farming done the right way can remove carbon from the atmosphere. by Jay Walljasper

A group of environmentalists and sustainable agriculture advocates discuss an initiative to reverse the greenhouse effect. It’s a diverse group. “We have 380 parts per million of carbon in the atmosphere, compared to 280 before the industrial revolution. Even if we stopped all emissions today, it would still be 345 a century from now.” One solution: “Eat a grass-fed burger. It will take carbon out of the air and put it back into the soil.” Why? Efforts to stop global warming have focused on reducing emissions, not in taking carbon out of the atmosphere. Carbon sequestration is not new. It figures in the carbon off-setting programs in which people pay to plant trees. But initiatives to sequester carbon through crops and grazing are less common, but perhaps more promising since they cover more of the earth than forests and grow at a faster rate. Scientists agree that organic matter in topsoil is 50 percent carbon up to one foot in depth; bumping that up by 1.6 percent across all the world’s agricultural land would solve the problem of global warming. Soil scientists studying the issue are measured in their predictions, but still enthusiastic.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:58 PM on 08/15/2010
“Nice thought, and sequestration can help incrementally, but realistically there's no way that alone will fully counter excess CO2 production via fossil fuel burning.

www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/co_2-fertilization/

"A few simple calculations indicate that any hypothesized co2 fertilization response is unlikely to offset a significant fraction of projected increases in atmospheric co2 concentration over the next century. At present, about 600 billion tons of carbon are tied up in the above-ground vegetation. About 2-3 times this much is tied up in roots and below ground carbon, which is a more difficult carbon pool to augment. By comparison, scenarios for fossil fuel emissions for the 21st century range from about 600 billion tons (if we can keep total global emissions at current levels) to over 2500 billion tons if the world increases its reliance on combustion of coal as economic growth and population increase dramatically. These numbers clearly indicate that sequestering a significant fraction of projected emissions in vegetation is likely to be very difficult, especially as forests are cleared to make way for agriculture and communities."

For more details, see:
www.atmos.umd.edu/~haifee/research/clivar04_c4mip_poster.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reforestation”
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
08:45 AM on 08/16/2010
In order to offset the burning of fossil fuels, you'd have to recreate and bury the thick bogs of vegetable material from which they were made. But I agree that we should step away from chemicals and use only organic fertilizers.
11:57 AM on 08/15/2010
Fuel management programs that utilize livestock (to curtail woody species on lands not suited to any kind of farming and are dominated by increased vegetation) are and could be an efficient and environmentally friendly way to prevent wildfires in the West.

According to range scientists who have studied this problem, plants such as cheatgrass create fuel that allow for easy ignition and rapid spread. With each new fire, perennial species of grass and plantlife are lost and converted to this species that become a real danger. Cattle, as ruminants, can convert this dry matter into a powerful food product AND prevent fire danger. That extremists, who have done limited research and are bound by old myths, refuse to consider this powerful option leave specialists with few choices; herbicides are a poor substitute for a natural solution.

Cattle, a species of bison, are a wonderful animal. Pasture and grazing animals, they can not only prevent fires, they can also contribute to carbon sequestration. The process is simple but highly effective and "GREEN": grass takes in carbon from the atmosphere; grazing animals trample the grass into the soil and carbon is absorbed; new grass sprouts and the process is repeated over and over, absorbing more and more carbon. Finally, few realize that more than 85% of all grazing lands in the U.S. are not suited to crops.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:20 PM on 08/15/2010
Ruminants, such as cattle, also produce enormous amounts of CH4, i.e., methane, which is 20 to 100 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2 (the number varies depending on how far you want to go in counting the extended fat tail of methane's half-life in the atmosphere - 10 years? 100 years?). In fact, methane now accounts for 4 - 9% of the global warming effect, and cattle are THE major contributors to anthropogenic methane production.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fumes
Midnight Toker
09:49 AM on 08/15/2010
~Roy W. Spencer is a climatologist and a Principal Research Scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, as well as the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award. Spencer believes that global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution and suggests that natural, chaotic variations in low cloud cover may account for most observed warming.[1][2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
10:11 AM on 08/15/2010
"Spencer believes that global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution and suggests that natural, chaotic variations in low cloud cover may account for most observed warming."

The links just go to Spencer's blog. Why should we accept the view of a single person's blog over a century of peer-reviewed science?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fumes
Midnight Toker
10:15 AM on 08/15/2010
bc he's right?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fumes
Midnight Toker
10:18 AM on 08/15/2010
and did you really just type:

''By the way, if Spencer is so smart why is he pointing an instrument that is accurate at a foot to the open sky?''

..with a straight face lol?
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
10:17 AM on 08/15/2010
Roy W. Spencer is also an evolution science denier:

"Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject."

"I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

That said even Spencer isn't in denial about the scientific fact that the Greenhouse Effect is real because greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation and re-radiate a portion of it back towards Earth - a basic scientific fact that you, Fumes, have repeatedly denied.

Stop being a science denier, Fumes.
12:41 PM on 08/20/2010
It takes enormous faith to believe in human origins evolution. This proves that scientists are salvageable.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
02:14 PM on 08/20/2010
Toleratem: "It takes enormous faith to believe in human origins evolution. This proves that scientists are salvageable. "

Are you a Creatiionist, Toleratem?

In any event you are conflating faith based on overwhelming empirical evidence (the scientific fact of evolution) vs. faith based on nothing but religious "revealed word" dogma (Christian "salvation") - those are not the same forms of faith, not even close, and not matter how many times science deniers falsely conflate them.