Sometimes people question whether or not Climate Change is real. After viewing the feature documentary, Chasing Ice, I can assure you that the debate is over. On Monday, January 23, 2012 -- Chasing Ice, had its world premiere at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival featuring documentary director Jeff Orlowski and his Academy Awarding winning production team led by Paula DuPré Pesmen, producer of the 2010 Academy Award®-winning The Cove, and writer Mark Monroe (The Cove, The Tillman Story).
Acclaimed National Geographic photographer James Balog was once a skeptic about climate change but through his Extreme Ice Survey, he discovers undeniable evidence about our global warming planet. In Chasing Ice, Balog deploys revolutionary time-lapse cameras to capture a multi-year record of the world's changing glaciers. The film features hauntingly beautiful, multi-year time-lapse videos of vanishing glaciers, while delivering fragile hope to our carbon-powered planet.
Traveling with a team of young adventurers across the brutal Arctic, Balog risks his career and his well-being in pursuit of his biggest story facing humanity. As the debate polarizes America, and the intensity of natural disasters ramps up globally, Chasing Ice depicts a heroic photojournalist on a mission to deliver knowledge and the hopefulness towards changing our carbon-powered planet.
Producer Paula DuPre Pesmen comments. "The minute I saw the footage, I had to be part of it for my two boys, Josh & Jesse. She further states, "this is happening faster than I thought. It's immediate and real, and I needed to get involved. People can now see what's happening. Climate Change is not a political issue, it's a humanity issue. It affects everyone on the planet."
ABOUT EXTREME ICE SURVEY (EIS)
Founded in 2007 by James Balog, the Extreme Ice Survey (EIS) is a breakthrough long-term photography project that merges art and science. One aspect of EIS is an extensive portfolio of single-frame photos celebrating the ethereal beauty of the planet's ice-covered landscapes. A second aspect is time-lapse photography; currently, 27 camera systems are deployed at 18 glaciers in Greenland, Iceland, the Nepalese Himalaya, Alaska and the Rocky Mountains. These cameras record changes in the glaciers every half hour, year-round during daylight. EIS edits the time-lapse images into stunning videos that reveal how quickly climate change is transforming the planet. EIS also performs repeat photography every few years in the French and Swiss Alps, Canada, Iceland, and Bolivia. The total EIS pictorial archive totals nearly one million frames. For more information on EIS, please visit www.ExtremeIceSurvey.org.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
Of the 16 eminent “scientist” signers of the above letter to the Wall Street Journal, we find that
only five: Allegre, Tennekes, Kininmonth, Lindzen, and Shaviv have done any research even remotely related to climate change.
However,
J. Scott Armstrong is actually a marketing and advertising professor;
Roger Cohen and Edward David are two retired Exxon executives;
James McGrath has been funded by: Petroleum Research Fund, Shell, Exxon, Dow Chemical;
Michael Kelly was actually on one of the exonerating “climategate” assessment panels;
Rodney Nichols is a right-wing policy think tank guy from Nixon's era, not a scientist at all;
Claude Allegre and Antonio Zichichi seem, well, rather dubious;
Hendrik H. Tennekes seems to have lost it; and
Nir Shaviv seems eager for continued funding for his dubious cosmic ray/cloud microphysics work.
Using the acronym (WNCRRPAA) to mean - with no climate-related research papers at all.
Claude Allegre, age 73.
“In 2010, more than 500 French researchers asked Science Minister Valérie Pécresse to dismiss Allègre’s book L’imposture climatique, claiming the book is "full of factual mistakes, distortions of data, and plain lies". One researcher, Hakan Grudd, called the changes that Allegre made in hand-redrawing a graph of his misleading and unethical. Allegre described the petition as "useless and stupid".[5]
"In 1996, Allègre opposed the removal of carcinogenic asbestos from the Jussieu university campus in Paris, describing it as harmless and dismissing concerns about it as a form of "psychosis created by leftists".[6] The campus' asbestos is deemed[by whom?] to have killed 22 people and caused serious health problems in 130 others.[7]
Gravity:
"In 1999, the Canard enchaîné, and subsequently several other media, published Allègre's claim, initially stated during a radio interview, that, if one drops a pétanque ball and a tennis ball at the same time from a tower, they will reach the ground at the same time. Allègre claimed that there was a popular misconception to the contrary, and that schoolchildren should be made to understand that two objects always fall at the same speed. The Canard responded that this was true only in a vacuum, and not in all cases as Allègre had said. The latter responded in turn, maintaining his initial statement. Georges Charpak, Nobel prize for Physics, intervened to explain that Allègre was wrong; the latter maintained his statement yet again.[6][8]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Allegre
J. Scott Armstrong, age 73, is an emeritus professor of marketing and advertising WNCRRPAA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Scott_Armstrong
Jan L. Breslow, M.D. age 70's, name on 332 publications, but WNCRRPAA
https://appext.rockefeller.edu/facpub/do/query_pub_list?author1=%22Breslow+J%22&yearFrom=1900
http://www.openletter-globalwarming.info/Site/Letter_to_Senate.html
Edward E. David, Jr., age 86, PhD 1947; Electrical Engineering Professor WNCRRPAA
was head of Research and Engineering for Exxon Corporation from 1977 to 1986.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_E._David_Jr.
William Happer, age ~74, professor of physics, Princeton; WNCRRPAA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer
Michael Kelly, age 62, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; WNCRRPAA;
http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/research_db/publications/mjk1
However,
“In 2010, Kelly was named by the Royal Society and the University of East Anglia to an independent scientific assessment panel to investigate the Climatic Research Unit email controversy.[1] The panel concluded that there was "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit."[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Kelly_%28physicist%29
William Kininmonth, retired head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology;
"The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now."[56] James Annan, a scientist involved in climate prediction, contacted Lindzen to arrange a bet. Annan and Lindzen exchanged proposals for bets, but were unable to agree, since Lindzen first insisted that he be given 50 to 1 odds.
Lindzen's final proposal was a bet that if the temperature change were less than 0.2 °C (0.36 °F), he would win. If the temperature change were between 0.2 °C (0.36 °F) and 0.4 °C (0.72 °F) the bet would be off, and if the temperature change were 0.4 °C (0.72 °F) or greater, Annan would win. He would take 2 to 1 odds."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#Third-party_characterizations_of_Lindzen
Among his funding sources has been: Petroleum Research Fund, Shell, Exxon, Dow Chemical
He has 447 peer-reviewed publications, BUT WNCRRPAA;
Rodney Nichols, age late 70's, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences, is not a scientist at all. With a Harvard bachelor's degree in physics, Nichols was an administrator and science policy consultant WNCRRPAA;
He is also a trustee or member of several right-wing think tanks: George C. Marshall Institute, American Enterprise Institute, Atlantic Legal Foundation, and Brookings Institute.
http://www.desmogblog.com/rodney-nichols
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2025028083-8086.html
Burt Rutan, age 68, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne, WNCRRPAA;
Harrison H. Schmitt, age 76, PhD in geology, 1964, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator;
WNCRRPAA;
Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; cosmic ray flux/cloud microphysics proponent;
H. H. Tennekes, age 75, fluid dynamicist, wrote his Turbulence book 39 years ago (with John Lumley). But then,
"in an interview in the Dutch paper De Telegraaf, Tennekes says he was ousted from his position at the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute due to his skepticism over climate change. After publishing a column critical of climate model accuracy, Tennekes says he was told "within two years, you'll be out on the street".[5]
"According to Gerbrand Komen, a retired KNMI researcher, Tennekes' view on climate change played a minor role. More important were[6] Tennekes' personality and his solitary views on a range of subjects. As an example Komen recalls how Tennekes objected to the increase of computing power for medium-range weather forecasting, because he considered this unnecessary. According to Komen, Tennekes sometimes supported this decision by referring to biblical texts."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Tennekes
Antonio Zichichi, age 82. WNCRRPAA. “he has been criticized from many quarters for his biased views. In his book on Galileo, Galilei, Divin Uomo: as many book reviewers have pointed out, this is a book with an ideological agenda, in which objectivity is sacrificed to the demonstration of the thesis that Galileo was a deeply committed Catholic more than a scientist and was therefore willing to renounce his scientific convinctions for his faith.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Zichichi
with no climate-related research papers at all (WNCRRPAA)
I have stood on a corner in Omaha [at-10 degrees F] with winds whipping so hard they knock you down.
\
I have also spent a day on the ocean in a sail boat going nowhere when it was100 Degrees F.
Wind force is caused by temperature difference not temperature.
CO2 warming would lessen temperature differences like a big blanket so wind speeds would be slower.
neptune: "the secret the alarmists won't tell you . . ."
Stop posing. No one is withholding scientific secrets from you. If you knew something you could just post your evidence and we could take a look. It gets windy in the cold. Imagine that. Why do you think they call Chicago the windy city?
neptune: "I have stood on a corner in Omaha [at-10 degrees F] with winds whipping so hard they knock you down."
Such drama. Good for you neptune. I go winter camping and hiking in the cold weather. The Inuit live in far colder weather than you. Yer from Texas for pete's sake.
neptune: "I have also spent a day on the ocean in a sail boat going nowhere when it was100 Degrees F."
Becalmed. It happens to every sailor who ever lived. Most of them don't try to make a scientific issue of it.
neptune: "Wind force is caused by temperature difference not temperature."
Thanks for that insight genius. Science has known this all along.
neptune: "CO2 warming would lessen temperature differences like a big blanket so wind speeds would be slower."
Write it up and submit it for publication. Hah! Science says storms will intensify.
The alarmists don't want it widely known because it isn't scary enough.
Science doesn't say whatever you claim it does. Sorry little Gallon. [1/2 pint !]
Right, summer winds are slower on average than winter. Why? The temperature gradient from equator-to-pole is reduced. This summer effect is what would be expected of global warming too because the poles are warming more quickly than the equator.
"The relative strength, or velocity, of the jet stream is proportional to the intensity of this thermal gradient."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-causes-the-high-spee
It is temperature DIFFERENCE not temperature, as a minute or two of thinking will tell you.
In my sailboat example I had to wait for sundown when the land cooled faster than the water and there was always wind.
Actually, it is happening more slowly than we thought.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature10847.html
Why? As the Nature article shows, humans extrapolate measurements and we measure more often in more easily accessible areas that happen to be warmer. Measurement bias led to an overestimate of the melting.
There is nothing at the end of your link that discusses extrapolation and location and measurement bias. That part came from you.
As Wahr puts it, only a few lower altitude glaciers are measured but many more exist at higher elevations. This has led to measurement bias.
Don't blame the messenger.
"Traditional estimates of Earth’s ice caps and glaciers have been made using ground-based measurements from relatively few glaciers to infer what all of the unmonitored glaciers around the world were doing, he said. Only a few hundred of the roughly 200,000 glaciers worldwide have been monitored for a decade or more."
“The GRACE results in this region really were a surprise,” said Wahr. “One possible explanation is that previous estimates were based on measurements taken primarily from some of the lower, more accessible glaciers in Asia and were extrapolated to infer the behavior of higher glaciers. But unlike the lower glaciers, many of the high glaciers would still be too cold to lose mass even in the presence of atmospheric warming.”
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/02/08/cu-boulder-study-shows-global-glaciers-ice-caps-shedding-billions-tons-mass
That agrees perfectly with what I wrote which was that "it is happening more slowly than we thought."
The math is simple. Do you really disagree?
If you have any doubts, ask anyone that lost a home or a business.
And, I live near ice and snow
Mankind may even be responsible for SOME of it.
We do not think there is sufficient reason to believe in a catastrophe if we don' throw tens of trillions of dollars at a politician.
We are throwing trillions at a politician? Who, pray tell?
Those professionals who study climate science know that if we continue along our current trajectory, eventually we will arrive at extinction conditions. How is that not a catastrophe?
The extinction conditions are just baloney! The only catastrophic warming predictions are from climate models which have always been wrong so far.
Why trust them ?
The inability of climate scientists to predict climate even 11 years in their future proves that their level of understanding is very low !Why spend tens of trillions based on it ?
AR4 predictions .3 ° C warming between 2001 and today.
http://tiny.cc/zwa7x
Actual COOLING between 2001 and today.
20001
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend
http://tiny.cc/plt8q
Least squares trend line; slope = -0.00610265 per year
Don’t get hung up on positive or negative the real story is how far wrong the prediction is.
You cannot do it, because it will never be published.
Why show that 4 ° C won't cause harm ?
The only real scientific debates left are over the rate of warming and the expected effects on climate/oceans/species. The rest is a political/economic debate over how humanity should respond. And science, while suggesting that something should be done, cannot resolve the political/economic debate.
Perfectly well said. While scientists should always be skeptical, limit their positions to what is supported by the evidence, and insist on careful and thorough vetting of all research, at this point those who deny the scientific evidence of global warming are being foolish.
But it remains a legitimate question as to what the proper political response should be.
F&F'd!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120112193442.htm
As of 2004, 20% of Americans believe that the sun is in orbit around the earth, while another 9% claim to not know.
40% of Americans still believe that two invisible beings are fighting each other for dominance over the universe and only belief in immaculate conception will save us from eternal torment in some as-of-yet undetected hell plane.
The number of people who don't believe we actually landed on the moon was 5% in 1999, and went up to 20% in 2001 after a FOX News special.
At this point, it's pretty safe to say that no amount of proof will convince some people. Better to believe in a book written by humans inspired by invisible deities than to believe decades worth of tried and tested science performed by people who actually admit when they're wrong and try to keep finding what's True, instead of sticking with their wrong ideas because it's comfortable.
Will there be a catastrophe ?
Climate science apparently doesn't know.
A doubling of CO2 would theoretically cause 1 °C of warming.
The alarmists multiply this by 3 to 6 to create fear.
So far the amplification hasn't happened and since the theory is wrong probably never will.
So far temperature has risen 1/2 °C per century and the rate has gone down to practically zero since2001.
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/01/the-tyndall-gas-effect-part-4-of-4-what-would-happen/
Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures have warmed roughly 1.33°F (0.74ºC) over the last century, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
http://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq#t2506n1341
The eight warmest years on record (since 1880) have all occurred since 2001, with the warmest year being 2005.
http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc.html
So it has warmed a slight and beneficial amount since 1860 ?
Does that mean that a catastrophe will ensue if we don't throw money at some politician ?
Artificially raising the cost of energy is mentally challenged.