Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted
You are probably wondering whether President-elect Obama owes the world an apology for his actions regarding global warming. The answer is, not yet. There is one person, however, who does. You have probably guessed his name: Al Gore.
Mr. Gore has stated, regarding climate change, that "the science is in." Well, he is absolutely right about that, except for one tiny thing. It is the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind.
What is wrong with the statement? A brief list:
1. First, the expression "climate change" itself is a redundancy, and contains a lie. Climate has always changed, and always will. There has been no stable period of climate during the Holocene, our own climatic era, which began with the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago. During the Holocene there have been numerous sub-periods with dramatically varied climate, such as the warm Holocene Optimum (7,000 B.C. to 3,000 B.C., during which humanity began to flourish, and advance technologically), the warm Roman Optimum (200 B.C. to 400 A.D., a time of abundant crops that promoted the empire), the cold Dark Ages (400 A.D. to 900 A.D., during which the Nile River froze, major cities were abandoned, the Roman Empire fell apart, and pestilence and famine were widespread), the Medieval Warm Period (900 A.D. to 1300 A.D., during which agriculture flourished, wealth increased, and dozens of lavish examples of Gothic architecture were created), the Little Ice Age (1300 to 1850, during much of which plague, crop failures, witch burnings, food riots -- and even revolutions, including the French Revolution -- were the rule of thumb), followed by our own time of relative warmth (1850 to present, during which population has increased, technology and medical advances have been astonishing, and agriculture has flourished).
So, no one needs to say the words "climate" and "change" in the same breath -- it is assumed, by anyone with any level of knowledge, that climate changes. That is the redundancy to which I alluded. The lie is the suggestion that climate has ever been stable. Mr. Gore has used a famously inaccurate graph, known as the "Mann Hockey Stick," created by the scientist Michael Mann, showing that the modern rise in temperatures is unprecedented, and that the dramatic changes in climate just described did not take place. They did. One last thought on the expression "climate change": It is a retreat from the earlier expression used by alarmists, "manmade global warming," which was more easily debunked. There are people in Mr. Gore's camp who now use instances of cold temperatures to prove the existence of "climate change," which is absurd, obscene, even.
2. Mr. Gore has gone so far to discourage debate on climate as to refer to those who question his simplistic view of the atmosphere as "flat-Earthers." This, too, is right on target, except for one tiny detail. It is exactly the opposite of the truth.
Indeed, it is Mr. Gore and his brethren who are flat-Earthers. Mr. Gore states, ad nauseum, that carbon dioxide rules climate in frightening and unpredictable, and new, ways. When he shows the hockey stick graph of temperature and plots it against reconstructed C02 levels in An Inconvenient Truth, he says that the two clearly have an obvious correlation. "Their relationship is actually very complicated," he says, "but there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others, and it is this: When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer." The word "complicated" here is among the most significant Mr. Gore has uttered on the subject of climate and is, at best, a deliberate act of obfuscation. Why? Because it turns out that there is an 800-year lag between temperature and carbon dioxide, unlike the sense conveyed by Mr. Gore's graph. You are probably wondering by now -- and if you are not, you should be -- which rises first, carbon dioxide or temperature. The answer? Temperature. In every case, the ice-core data shows that temperature rises precede rises in carbon dioxide by, on average, 800 years. In fact, the relationship is not "complicated." When the ocean-atmosphere system warms, the oceans discharge vast quantities of carbon dioxide in a process known as de-gassing. For this reason, warm and cold years show up on the Mauna Loa C02 measurements even in the short term. For instance, the post-Pinatubo-eruption year of 1993 shows the lowest C02 increase since measurements have been kept. When did the highest C02 increase take place? During the super El Niño year of 1998.
3. What the alarmists now state is that past episodes of warming were not caused by C02 but amplified by it, which is debatable, for many reasons, but, more important, is a far cry from the version of events sold to the public by Mr. Gore.
Meanwhile, the theory that carbon dioxide "drives" climate in any meaningful way is simply wrong and, again, evidence of a "flat-Earth" mentality. Carbon dioxide cannot absorb an unlimited amount of infrared radiation. Why not? Because it only absorbs heat along limited bandwidths, and is already absorbing just about everything it can. That is why plotted on a graph, C02's ability to capture heat follows a logarithmic curve. We are already very near the maximum absorption level. Further, the IPCC Fourth Assessment, like all the ones before it, is based on computer models that presume a positive feedback of atmospheric warming via increased water vapor.
4. This mechanism has never been shown to exist. Indeed, increased temperature leads to increased evaporation of the oceans, which leads to increased cloud cover (one cooling effect) and increased precipitation (a bigger cooling effect). Within certain bounds, in other words, the ocean-atmosphere system has a very effective self-regulating tendency. By the way, water vapor is far more prevalent, and relevant, in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide -- a trace gas. Water vapor's absorption spectrum also overlays that of carbon dioxide. They cannot both absorb the same energy! The relative might of water vapor and relative weakness of carbon dioxide is exemplified by the extraordinary cooling experienced each night in desert regions, where water in the atmosphere is nearly non-existent.
If not carbon dioxide, what does "drive" climate? I am glad you are wondering about that. In the short term, it is ocean cycles, principally the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the "super cycle" of which cooling La Niñas and warming El Niños are parts. Having been in its warm phase, in which El Niños predominate, for the 30 years ending in late 2006, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation switched to its cool phase, in which La Niñas predominate.
Since that time, already, a number of interesting things have taken place. One La Niña lowered temperatures around the globe for about half of the year just ended, and another La Niña shows evidence of beginning in the equatorial Pacific waters. During the last twelve months, many interesting cold-weather events happened to occur: record snow in the European Alps, China, New Zealand, Australia, Brazil, the Pacific Northwest, Alaska, the Rockies, the upper Midwest, Las Vegas, Houston, and New Orleans. There was also, for the first time in at least 100 years, snow in Baghdad.
Concurrent with the switchover of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation to its cool phase the Sun has entered a period of deep slumber. The number of sunspots for 2008 was the second lowest of any year since 1901. That matters less because of fluctuations in the amount of heat generated by the massive star in our near proximity (although there are some fluctuations that may have some measurable effect on global temperatures) and more because of a process best described by the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark in his complex, but elegant, work The Chilling Stars. In the book, the modern Galileo, for he is nothing less, establishes that cosmic rays from deep space seed clouds over Earth's oceans. Regulating the number of cosmic rays reaching Earth's atmosphere is the solar wind; when it is strong, we get fewer cosmic rays. When it is weak, we get more. As NASA has corroborated, the number of cosmic rays passing through our atmosphere is at the maximum level since measurements have been taken, and show no signs of diminishing. The result: the seeding of what some have taken to calling "Svensmark clouds," low dense clouds, principally over the oceans, that reflect sunlight back to space before it can have its warming effect on whatever is below.
Svensmark has proven, in the minds of most who have given his work a full hearing, that it is this very process that produced the episodes of cooling (and, inversely, warming) of our own era and past eras. The clearest instance of the process, by far, is that of the Maunder Minimum, which refers to a period from 1650 to 1700, during which the Sun had not a single spot on its face. Temperatures around the globe plummeted, with quite adverse effects: crop failures (remember the witch burnings in Europe and Massachusetts?), famine, and societal stress.
Many solar physicists anticipate that the slumbering Sun of early 2009 is likely to continue for at least two solar cycles, or about the next 25 years. Whether the Grand Solar Minimum, if it comes to pass, is as serious as the Maunder Minimum is not knowable, at present. Major solar minima (and maxima, such as the one during the second half of the 20th century) have also been shown to correlate with significant volcanic eruptions. These are likely the result of solar magnetic flux affecting geomagnetic flux, which affects the distribution of magma in Earth's molten iron core and under its thin mantle. So, let us say, just for the sake of argument, that such an eruption takes place over the course of the next two decades. Like all major eruptions, this one will have a temporary cooling effect on global temperatures, perhaps a large one. The larger the eruption, the greater the effect. History shows that periods of cold are far more stressful to humanity than periods of warm. Would the eruption and consequent cooling be a climate-modifier that exists outside of nature, somehow? Who is the "flat-Earther" now?
What about heat escaping from volcanic vents in the ocean floor? What about the destruction of warming, upper-atmosphere ozone by cosmic rays? I could go on, but space is short. Again, who is the "flat-Earther" here?
The ocean-atmosphere system is not a simple one that can be "ruled" by a trace atmospheric gas. It is a complex, chaotic system, largely modulated by solar effects (both direct and indirect), as shown by the Little Ice Age.
To be told, as I have been, by Mr. Gore, again and again, that carbon dioxide is a grave threat to humankind is not just annoying, by the way, although it is that! To re-tool our economies in an effort to suppress carbon dioxide and its imaginary effect on climate, when other, graver problems exist is, simply put, wrong. Particulate pollution, such as that causing the Asian brown cloud, is a real problem. Two billion people on Earth living without electricity, in darkened huts and hovels polluted by charcoal smoke, is a real problem.
So, let us indeed start a Manhattan Project-like mission to create alternative sources of energy. And, in the meantime, let us neither cripple our own economy by mislabeling carbon dioxide a pollutant nor discourage development in the Third World, where suffering continues unabated, day after day.
Again, Mr. Gore, I accept your apology.
And, Mr. Obama, though I voted for you for a thousand times a thousand reasons, I hope never to need one from you.
P.S. One of the last, desperate canards proposed by climate alarmists is that of the polar ice caps. Look at the "terrible," "unprecedented" melting in the Arctic in the summer of 2007, they say. Well, the ice in the Arctic basin has always melted and refrozen, and always will. Any researcher who wants to find a single molecule of ice that has been there longer than 30 years is going to have a hard job, because the ice has always been melted from above (by the midnight Sun of summer) and below (by relatively warm ocean currents, possibly amplified by volcanic venting) -- and on the sides, again by warm currents. Scientists in the alarmist camp have taken to referring to "old ice," but, again, this is a misrepresentation of what takes place in the Arctic.
More to the point, 2007 happened also to be the time of maximum historic sea ice in Antarctica. (There are many credible sources of this information, such as the following website maintained by the University of Illinois-Urbana: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg). Why, I ask, has Mr. Gore not chosen to mention the record growth of sea ice around Antarctica? If the record melting in the Arctic is significant, then the record sea ice growth around Antarctica is, too, I say. If one is insignificant, then the other one is, too.
For failing to mention the 2007 Antarctic maximum sea ice record a single time, I also accept your apology, Mr. Gore. By the way, your contention that the Arctic basin will be "ice free" in summer within five years (which you said last month in Germany), is one of the most demonstrably false comments you have dared to make. Thank you for that!
Related on HufPost:
A. Siegel -- Global Warming Knowledge: "Perhaps it is worthwhile to take a moment to lay out some reasonable sources for actual knowledge when it comes to Global Warming science and discussion."
Kevin Grandia -- On Global Warming is it Harold Ambler or the Royal Society?: "It appears that Ambler's background in the area of climate science is non-existent."
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Temperature history of the Great Barrier Reef
This data set, derived from oxygen isotopes, show the average temperature in the Great Barrier Reef from 1550 to 1993 was 24.76°C.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/sclerosponge/west_pacific/ribbon_astrosclera_isotope.txt
The most recent temperature, centered on 1990 was 24.75°C.
The temperature obviously varies from south to north and this graph has temperatures from satellites averaged over the GBR.
http://mclean.ch/climate/GBR_sea_temperature.htm
It shows no trend over the period 1982-2008.
From your ftp link:
"The major decline of 0.5 per mill. occurred during the industrial period
of the 19th and 20th century, likely to be due to the increased release
of CO2 by deforestation and burning of fossil fuel during the period of
industrialization after 1850 (increased input of lighter carbon isotopes)."
Nevertheless, the data is only through 1990. More info:
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/info_services/science/climate_change/coral_bleaching.html
I didn't find any temperature data at the GBRMPA link.
The temperatures of the last 25 years show ups and downs but I don't see any trend.
http://mclean.ch/climate/GBR_sea_temperature.htm
Why not look what NOAA says, since you quote a small amount of their data.
Per NOAA's website,global warming is real and due to human activities. The warming has not been "globally uniform" [assuming you local numbers on the reef are accurate]
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. . The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv. .
Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. ..
Hey Captain Kirk,
What % of the atmosphere is made up of CO2?
What % is made up of greenhouse gases?
What is the most common greenhouse gas?
How much warmer does the UN's IPCC say things will get in 100 years?
Do you remember why global cooling supporters
believed that cooling was man made?
Finally, how did that bust of Lincoln stolen from the white house end up at Gore's home?
I'll let you think about it for a while.
A couple more:
Ambler: "So, let us say, just for the sake of argument, that such an eruption takes place over the course of the next two decades. Like all major eruptions, this one will have a temporary cooling effect on global temperatures, perhaps a large one. The larger the eruption, the greater the effect. History shows that periods of cold are far more stressful to humanity than periods of warm. Would the eruption and consequent cooling be a climate-modifier that exists outside of nature, somehow? Who is the "flat-Earther" now?"
This is a bizarre line of reasoning. As you acknowledge, a major volcanic eruption could have a TEMPORARY cooling effect. La Nina also results in temporary cooling (although la Ninas are getting consistently warmer). 1991 was an example. How would this effect the long-term warming trend?
The cosmic rays hypothesis fizzled out.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088%2F1748-9326%2F3%2F2%2F024001
As for the solar influence in general, changes should have resulted in a cooling effect in recent decades, if anything.
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/104/10/3713.pdf
This is why your ramblings on "climate change" are a strawman. Scientists, Gore, etc. don't claim that there aren't natural climate change influences. An objective look at the science, however, indicates that the human influence is much greater over the last several decades.
"The cosmic rays hypothesis fizzled out."
On the other hand, we have this paper by Harrison and Stephenson
http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/77543w3q4mq86417/fulltext.pdf
which showed, among other things, a 19% increase in overcast days when the cosmic ray neutron count was high.
Other findings from the study indicate that the amplification effect on total solar irradiance, if any, is small. Note from the BBC link:
"Dr Harrison's own research, looking at the UK only, has also suggested that cosmic rays make only a very weak contribution to cloud formation."
which is closer to the conclusions of the Sloan study. Also note that solar output has fallen slightly over the past few decades. In that sense, cosmic rays would actually amplify a cooling effect (if anything), indicating other warming factors (i.e. GHGs) are stronger.
This is probably over the head and beyond the objectivity of the individual who created this silly blog post.
We live in a republic that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with thermometers. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Dr. Schneider? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for those Polar bears and you curse the temperature takers. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. My existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves useless expenditure of national treasure. You don't want the truth. Deep down, in places you don't talk about when your are sleeping alone late at night after those George Town cocktail parties after chowing down on limp quiche and swilling a third rate California Chardonnay devoid of pretension, you want me on that wall you need me on that wall.
We use words like Little Ice Age, Medieval Warming Period, and Toga Parties ...we use these words as the backbone to a life devoted to taking temperature. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the electric blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a thermometer and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to
hehehehehehehehehehehe
Now THAT was funny as hell!!!!
Give that poster a pick!!!! :D
Michale.....
just downled "wave man" and its s**t
Ambler: "Mr. Gore has used a famously inaccurate graph, known as the "Mann Hockey Stick," created by the scientist Michael Mann, showing that the modern rise in temperatures is unprecedented...."
Mann's original graph is not "inaccurate". It was challenged by a paper in AGU, but not very successfully. As IPCC4 noted, the paper "may have some theoretical foundation, but Wahl and Amman (2006) also show that the impact on the amplitude of the final reconstruction is very small."
"Academy affirms hockey-stick graph"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/full/4411032a.html
Essentially, the "controversy" was 90% political, 10% science. If you don't like the Mann findings, you can choose:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Any reconstruction you cherry-pick is going to say the same thing: recent global temperatures are the warmest in at least 1000 years.
You also mention natural cooling factors such as the 11-year solar cycle, ENSO, etc.. When all of these factors are considered, 2008 is in the top 10 warmest years on record. It's the warmest la Nina year and the warmest year at a solar cycle minimum - more notable when you combine the two. That should tell you something.
There are a number of false assertions crammed into your post, Mr. Ambler. I've only touched on a few. If you apologize for your errors, I'll take the time to address a few more. At any rate, I suggest leaving science to the scientists.
It is so tedious hearing comments like these that suggest that the National Academy of Science affirms the Hockey Stick.
Basically, the NAS commissioned report by the National Research Council thoroughly discredited the hockey stick, but it did so in a politically cautious way so as to not be seen as denying AGW or embarrassing Michael Mann.
On page 107 of their report, they state the following:
“Some of these criticisms are more relevant than others, but taken together, they
are an important aspect of a more general finding of this committee, which is that
uncertainties of the published reconstructions have been underestimated.”
This is the politically polite way of saying that Mann’s curve was invalid. Not only do they challenge the method used to generate the hockey stick, but they affirm the claims of Mann’s primary critics, notably McIntyre and McItrick [the AGU paper you mention]. They explicitly agree that the model is overly reliant upon very questionable proxies (there is an interesting sidebar to this fact revealing fraudulent activity by Mann, but the word limit prevents me from elaborating). They also recognize that the statistical method employed by Mann will always produce hockey sticks, even when fed red noise.
The NAS panel does state that they believe that there is evidence for human-caused global warming, but they come to this conclusion not on the basis of Mann's curve but on other sources.
That would be a gross misinterpretation of the NAS findings - basically reading what you want to read. The existence of uncertainties in the reconstruction does not invalidate it. Even taking the error bars into consideration and assuming the highest temperatures of past records, the primary conclusion regarding late 20th century warming being unprecedented over the millenium remains the same. Moreover, every other type of proxy and temperature reconstruction since then has backed the same conclusion.
You're basically reporting the claims by M & M, which has been refuted by Wahl and Amman.
Apparently you find the journal Nature tedious, because their view is that NAS affirmed the hockey stick graph.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/full/4411032a.html
NAS: Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years
The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998,
1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in
the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented
during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion
has subsequently been supported by an
array of evidence that includes both additional
large-scale surface temperature reconstructions
and pronounced changes in a variety of local
proxy indicators, such as melting on icecaps and
the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in
many cases appear to be unprecedented during
at least the last 2,000 years.
http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/Surface_Temps_final.pdf
Ambler: "Mr. Gore claims..."
Um, no. It's not Mr. Gore's claims. Take some time reading the statements from the major scientific academies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Or examine the peer-reviewed studies on the topic:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf
Ambler: "During the last twelve months, many interesting cold-weather events happened to occur"
There have been interesting warm-weather events too. You mention snowfall in the Pacific Northwest. Do you realize that there have been more record highs set in Portland this year than record lows? Weather isn't climate.
Ambler: "Temperature. In every case, the ice-core data shows that temperature rises precede rises in carbon dioxide by, on average, 800 years. In fact, the relationship is not "complicated." "
Actually, it is, although I certainly understand why you wouldn't want to think so. It involves positive feedbacks. A discussion from actual climatologists on the topic.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
Your first reference is Wikipedia. In our local University, Wikipedia may not be used as a reference in any term paper submitted for credit nor is it acceptable as a reference in any paper prepared for publication. Such papers are rejected out of hand without grade.
Your second reference is not peer-reviewed science despite your claim it is. If you understood what peer-reviewed science is you would recognize the Oreskes piece is nothing more than an essay about science by an individual who is not even a trained scientist.
realclimate is a self-promotional website maintained by Gavin Schmidt and company of NASA GISS. It is vigorously Alarmist partisan in its editorial tilt. No dissenting opinions are tolerated there. Unwelcome posts are frequently redacted or deleted. It is trivial to find complainst about his on the web. one such:
"Your policy is more than fair. I have had my posts blocked or edited over at RealCLimate just for posting sincere contrarian ideas. Here you have been very tolerant of others even when they are not very respectful." http://climatesci.org/2007/08/18/general-notice-on-tone-of-comments/
Your argument may siimply be dismissed since it contains no actual content.
Your argument may simply be dismissed since it contains no actual content, but I'll give you a break...
The Wikipedia link merely shows statements from the major scientific academies. Feel free to verify them.
The Oreskes survey was published in Science, a peer-reviewed journal. Also,
"Oreskes received her BSc degree in Mining Geology from the Royal School of Mines of Imperial College, University of London in 1981, and worked as a Research Assistant in the Geology Department and as a Teaching Assistant in the departments of Geology, Philosophy and Applied Earth Sciences at Stanford University starting in 1984. She received her PhD degree in the Graduate Special Program in Geological Research and History of Science at Stanford in 1990. She received a National Science Foundation's Young Investigator Award in 1994."
RealClimate is run by a group of highly-credentialed climate scientists who have published extensively in peer-reviewed journals. A quick look at the comments section of any post reveals your claims false. All sorts of misinformed denialists post there.
Science
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834
Another nail in the coffin....
Michale.......
On the contrary - this article is heinously misleading. It cites the Antarctic sea ice figures as those these were the figures for ALL sea ice.
Here's what the very website that Mr Ambler links to says about the significance of the Antarctic sea ice data:
"Keep in mind, even though this is indeed a record, it is not nearly as significant as the minimum record which was just set in the northern hemisphere, in which the sea ice extent was 23% less than the previous record set back in 2005. This new record in the southern hemisphere is not even 1% greater than the old record maximum, and it barely sticks out on the graph of southern hemispheric sea ice area since 1979. Overall, the graph seems to show little variation since 1979."
http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/10/southern_hemisphere_sea_ice_re.html
If you are going to quote the "science" quote it in context please.
"On the contrary - this article is heinously misleading. It cites the Antarctic sea ice figures as those these were the figures for ALL sea ice."
The graph at the original link
www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834
is indeed for global sea ice. It does show that the global sea ice is the same as it was at the end of 1979.
Hardly.
As another poaster notes: heinously misleading.
Average ice thickness and average age of ice is ignored as are other questions of significance
This is worth considering, but read the other information at the link:
|||
Seasonal versus perennial ice
The Arctic sea ice cover is composed of perennial ice (the ice that
survives year-round) and seasonal ice (the ice that melts during the
summer). Consistent with the diminishing trends in the extent and thickness of the cover is a significant loss of the older, thicker perennial ice in the Arctic (Fig. S4).
...
While there is considerable interannual variability, an overall downward trend in the amount of
perennial ice began in the early 1970s. This trend appears to coincide with a general increase in the Arctic-wide, annually averaged surface air temperature, which also begins around 1970. In recent years, the rate of reduction in the amount of older, thicker perennial ice has been increasing, and now very little ice older than 5 yr remains .
Many authors have recently acknowledged that a relatively younger, thinner ice cover is more susceptible to the effects of atmospheric and oceanic forcing ... and the amplification of these effects through the ice albedo feedback mechanism, it is becoming
increasingly likely that the Arctic will change from a perennially ice-covered to an ice-free ocean in the summer.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/seaice.html
|||
See also:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080111100652.htm
Fran
Weather is not climate, and Ambler expresses a complete disability to distinguish the two here. I have no idea why HuffPo is posting this. Many petroleum companies have admitted that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. In fact, they hire many geoscientists to find petroleum who earned their degrees studying climate change. I would strongly suggest that HuffPo seek out a learned researcher on the topic instead of perpetuating the sort of negative knowledge that has been leading our nation down a dangerous path of destruction for far too long.
Amen.
Why do climate change deniers attack Al Gore instead of the actual climate science and scientists? Because they think it gives rhetorical force to their argument. What a complete waste of time.
Because it's Al Gore that is making millions off his con and the gullibility of those that Lenin referred to as "Useful Idiots"...
Michale......
I don't think the people who can actually understand the difference between climate and weather, and who can correctly interpret a CO2 chart, are the "useful idiots" here.
Read a book or supthin.
Contrary to popular rightwing mythology, Lenin never used the term "useful idiots" -- this was something attributed to him about 50 years after he died by those seeking to slander leftists and liberals
Al Gore is not yet making millions from proposals to mitigate anthropogenic emissions, but in America, the mere making of millions from some activity doesn't make it a con. People make millions in waste disposal and yet this is seen as legitimate
big al is the figure-head, leader, inventor for the whole movement. why does everyone attack george bush on the war in iraq when every single prominent democrat in congress voted in favor of the war? see it for yourself here: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ae9_1207228741
That vote was not in favor of war, it was in favor of allowing the President to threaten war, to get inspectors back in.
Yeah, they think Al is still running for President. Oldest Rove trick in the book: attack all claims made by non coolaid-drinkers as being made for political purposes.
This whole exercise has been extremely amusing and predictable. The reality is that the game is over. The Global Warming discussion went downhill with the publication Bjorn Lomborg’s work in Scientific American. The attending vicious attack on his work by persons of dubious academic credentials perverted the argument.
When the domestic economy tanked and the world economy with it, Global Warming issues tanked also. There will be no policy generated or funding allocated on this matter. Therefore I will posit that the Global Warming Issue is a matter of no importance and is destined for the ashbin of history. So be it. I would also strongly suggest that anyone who invested in Carbon Trading instruments review his or her positions
It never ceases to amaze me how generous some people are, around here. I'm sure Mr. Gore and his "green" hedge-fund buddies are very grateful to all of you, continuing to cling to the anthropogenic warming myth. No doubt, Mr. Gore will be busy writing all of you, thank you cards, (in the warmth of his home, where he uses 20x as much electricity as the average American) for the hundreds of millions he and his buddies are going to make if we all go along with this scam.
I've found it interesting, the parallels between Mr. Gore and the priests of old who used to hold power over people by predicting perfectly natural phenomena, like eclipses. Of course, Mr. Gore needs to work on those predicting abilities.
Dead on ballz accurate..
Did any of the Human Caused Global Warming(Yet The Planet Is Cooling) disciples accurately predict the record cold temps of 2008??? :D
Well, I guess we can ignore all their computer models eh?? What were they run on?? Commodore 64s????
Michale.....
Yes, actually, record cold years have been predicted by some models. Apparently you haven't actually read the science. One year does not alter a trend.
The temperature curve goes fairly smoothly upwards over that time - which it shouldn't from cosmic rays, because, well, cosmic ray intensity isn't decreasing over time. Now compare this other chart: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a2/Climate_Change_Attribution.png . That's derived using a *good* theory, the greenhouse gas model of climate forcing. Notice how GHGs go up, and temperatures go up too? That's a model of climate change that you can build a house on. Except if you don't like the punch line.
Well sure fine as long as you clip the last 15 years off the chart, as your link does. For the last 8 years, the CO2 has climbed steadily but the temps have not. The only reasonable solution to making this model still align to reality is to lower the assumed forcing response of the GHGs and increase the Solar/GCR forcing response
4b. Stars and cosmic rays cause clouds, which change global temperature.
> Here's a chart of cosmic intensity over time, measured on the same graph as the 10.7 cm Solar flux above the atmosphere: http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/JCPSA6-ft/vol_129/iss_2/027101_1-F1.jpg . See how the cosmic rays (the solid line on the top graph) waves up and down, every 11 years or so? Now look at global temperature, between 1980 and 2005. Now here's a graph of global temperature: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/ann/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif . See how the graph waves up and down, in exactly the same pattern, over the period between 1980 and 2005? I mean, the temperature clearly goes UP in 1980, when the cosmic rays are low, and then back DOWN in 1985, when they're high, and UP in 1990, when they are high again, and DOWN in 1998, when they're high again, and DOWN again in 2001, when they are low, and UP again in 2004, just as predicted by the "Cosmic Rays Cause Global Warming" theory. It's just like the 10.7 cm solar flux graph, on with the y-axis labelled "Temperature" instead of "10.7 cm solar flux". Except, wait, it isn't.
*laughs*
Let's see... what has Harold served up for us today?
1. Climate's always changed. Nothing to see here. Move along.
> Tell it to Australia... they're in a GHG-induced 1000-year drought. Or, you know, look at the climate reconstructions. This decade's probably the hottest decade, planetwide, in the last 700 000 years.
2. CO2 doesn't cause climate change. If you look at the climate record (which he introduces into evidence, so that makes the 700 000 year story good), CO2 follows the temperature increases of the last ice ages, 700 years or so later.
> Hmmm, good one. So why is the climate warming then? Oh yeah, CO2. Then why did CO2 lag temperature in the past? Maybe because... it wasn't people burning carbon that made the CO2 happen? Let's see: Earth's orbit changes, the temperature goes up, and then a bunch of CO2 is released. Wow, this is actually sounding like Bad News - the temperature goes up, and then CO2 is released, and then the temperature goes up some more. Like a feedback loop! It's almost like we should do something now about this!
StefInCanada.
2 points:
1. I have researched the claim of a 1000 year drought in Australia to try to determine its source. From what I can tell, this was an "off-the-cuff" comment by a local water utility manager who used it to try to emphasize that it is really bad. No one has ever provided a statistical analysis generating this result but it keeps getting hawked as scientific. But even if it had statistical verification, it still means that this is not unprecedented. Over a period of 700,000 years, a 1000 year drought would have occurred hundreds of times!
In addition, where is the peer-reviewed paper that establishes that this drought is GHG induced?
2. If temperature rise causes CO2 release, which in turn raises temperature even more through a positive feedback loop, then please explain to me why the temperature went back down again?
"If floating ice melts, the water level goes down. If ice on land melts, the land mass rises."
If the laws of your world applied to mine, all I would have to do to keep ocean levels from rising would be to melt some arctic ice. If that failed, I could always melt some ice on my continent.
It does. Air is trapped in ice which is release during melting. While the displacement of floating ice does not cause rise when melted, the air mass is however released.
do you ever read your own dribbel and chuckle?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
