^^most of that has been proven false, and even if it were all true there is NO PROOF any of it is human caused

9/4/2009 8:42:56 AM

What do you mean most of that has been proven false?

9/4/2009 1:23:58 PM

Quote :

" A marine scientist reports that Alaskan waters are turning acidic from absorbing greenhouse gases faster than tropical waters, potentially endangering the state's $4.6 billion fishing industry. • NASA satellite measurements show that sea ice in the Arctic is more than just shrinking in area, it is dramatically thinning. The volume of older crucial sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk by 57 percent from the winter of 2004 to 2008. • Global warming effects in Alaska also include shrinking glaciers, coastal erosion and the march north of destructive forest beetles formerly held in check by cold winters. And with the melting of land-based ice, such as the massive Greenland ice cap, sea levels could rise across the world, threatening millions who live in coastal cities."

well let's see: the fears of ocean acidity has no consensus, with many studies showing that's not the case. Over the last two years Artic ice has recovered greatly, and the worst melting in recent history of the Artic was back in the 30s, not this decade. Destructive forest beetles being blamed on AGW? That's so far fetched its a joke. Glaciers shrinking in Alaska proves nothing. The Snow/Ice pack on Greenland has been increasing in volume, not decreasing. Additionally, you have to love the line thrown in there about rising sea levels threatening millions. Whereas there's been no increase in the level of sea level rise over the average (sea level has been constantly rising since the last ice age. I hear humans are to blame for that as well).

9/4/2009 2:03:48 PM

Quote :

"For more than 2,000 years, a natural wobble in Earth's axis has caused the Arctic region to move farther away from the sun during the region's summer, reducing the amount of solar radiation it receives. The Arctic is now 600,000 miles farther from the sun than it was in AD 1, and temperatures there should have fallen a little more than 1 degree Fahrenheit since then. Instead, the region has warmed 2.2 degrees since 1900 alone, and the decade from 1998 to 2008 was the warmest in two millenniums, according to a team headed by climatologist Darrell S. Kaufman of Northern Arizona University. Not only was the last half-century the warmest of the last 2,000 years, "but it reversed the long-term, millennial-scale trend toward cooler temperatures," Kaufman said. "

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-arctic5-2009sep05,0,3388515.story

9/5/2009 10:24:16 AM

it's a good thing we have such accurate temperature data from 2000 years ago so that we can make claims like that.

9/5/2009 10:43:23 AM

Quote :

"The climate warming record was produced from tree rings, glacier ice and cores drilled in 14 lakes around the Arctic. Layers of sediment provided a proxy for temperatures: thicker layers indicated higher temperatures as water from melting glaciers pushed mud into the lakes, while thinner layers indicated less melting. All three data sources told the same story -- that the Arctic began to warm at the beginning of the Industrial Age in the mid-1800s, when humans began releasing large quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. "

9/5/2009 10:49:48 AM

and you take that seriously? do we have trees that are 2000 years old in the arctic? do you think they can honestly get data on ice, a solid that sublimates, from layers they assume are 2000 years old and be able to accurately measure the temperatures from 2000 years ago?

9/5/2009 10:54:37 AM

haha are you joking right now?

9/5/2009 10:58:33 AM

yaaaay, more cherry-picked proxies!

You do realize that tree-ring size is also correlated to CO2 increases, right?

9/5/2009 4:16:14 PM

Quote :

"The Arctic is now 600,000 miles farther from the sun than it was in AD 1, and temperatures there should have fallen a little more than 1 degree Fahrenheit since then."

I don't know if I believe this. 600,000 miles is a long way. When you consider that the diameter of the earth is only about 8,000 miles, that's a bit more than a "tilt" in the Earth's axis. A distance of 600,000 miles in just 2000 years would mean that we are way out of orbit and headed for Mars right now, I'm thinking.

[Edited on September 5, 2009 at 8:02 PM. Reason : 2]

9/5/2009 8:01:21 PM

^ i was wondering that too. I think it may just be a typo or oversight in the article, or something.

9/5/2009 8:51:27 PM

so much for peer-review, right?

9/5/2009 9:15:20 PM

^^so you think that the distance was wrong but everything else about the article had to be 100% infallible? maybe you should be asking yourself about whether or not you're joking right now.

9/6/2009 1:02:04 AM

Here is the article straight from the source instead of through an LA Times reporter:

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=115010&org=NSF&from=news

Quote :

"The researchers believe that the long cooling trend was caused by a previously recognized wobble in the Earth's axis of rotation that slowly increased the distance between the Earth and the Sun during the Arctic summer, and thereby reduced summer sunshine in the Arctic. (See figure.) But even though this cooling wobble persisted throughout the 20th century, by the middle of the 20th century, summer temperatures in the Arctic were about 0.7 degrees Celsius higher than would have been expected if the cooling trend had continued. This incongruity provides evidence of human influences on climate change, says Kaufman."

The 600,000 miles number was probably taken from this graphic:

http://www.nsf.gov/news/mmg/media/images/arctic_warming2_h1.jpg

But the Times reporter is an idiot and seems to have misinterpreted the findings, or oversimplified them. In any case, he did a disservice to the reader.

[Edited on September 6, 2009 at 4:00 AM. Reason : .]

9/6/2009 3:39:27 AM

^^ I didn’t think it was “wrong” i just assumed the reporter screwed something up (because most of them aren’t scientists).

And nothing is “infallible” in science. But ice core dating isn’t as sketchy as you seem to think, especially when the dates they are getting corroborate other dating sources.

9/6/2009 10:01:34 AM

I like how the author also tried to claim that the wobble on the axis would make the arctic continually get further away from the sun instead of correcting stating that the arctic would cyclically get closer and further away from the sun.

I'd like to see an explanation of why we know that the sun's output has been consistent enough to know the exact temperatures we should have experienced 2000 years ago. everything about both of those articles seems extremely suspect.

9/6/2009 10:42:25 AM

Quote :

"I like how the author also tried to claim that the wobble on the axis would make the arctic continually get further away from the sun instead of correcting stating that the arctic would cyclically get closer and further away from the sun."

The arctic doesn't get much direct sunlight during winter, so it probably wouldn't be affected by the earth being further away like it would in summer, if indeed the wobble would cause it to be.

But, I don't know. You're the internet expert on the earth's wobble. I'm sure you already thought of that right? Not like the dedicated scientists who worked in this study.

9/6/2009 1:04:29 PM

Quote :

"The arctic doesn't get much direct sunlight during winter, so it probably wouldn't be affected by the earth being further away like it would in summer, if indeed the wobble would cause it to be."

Even if the pole never received any sunlight ever again it would not cool to zero kelvin, as air-currents will keep it supplied with heat from the parts of the planet that do get sunlight.

[Edited on September 6, 2009 at 2:03 PM. Reason : .,.]

9/6/2009 1:58:19 PM

Quote :

" Here is the article straight from the source instead of through an LA Times reporter:"

actually, the source is here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/325/5945/1236

your link is just an nsf press release about the science article

Quote :

"do we have trees that are 2000 years old in the arctic?"

apparently, yes -- the article cites three 2000 year tree ring records from this source:

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1501/2269.full

in addition to numerous ice core, varves, and sediment proxy records

i have no idea where the 600,000 mi comes from, as it's not mentioned specifically in the article -- i assume it's in this well-cited (792 times!) 1991 article: A. Berger, M. F. Loutre, Quat. Sci. Rev. 10, 297-317 (1991) Insolation values for the climate of the last 10 million years

9/6/2009 2:42:42 PM

^^What's your point?

^The 600,000 miles is shown in the graphic I linked to. Actually, it's 1 million km, but the reporter converted it.


[Edited on September 6, 2009 at 2:52 PM. Reason : .]

9/6/2009 2:45:21 PM

I love it!

"Despite being father away, the Arctic is warmer in the summer in the 20th century."

Yes, kind sir, the only things that affect summer temperatures in the Arctic are CO2 and the distance from the sun. Holy shit, what a massively stupid writer. He did forget to include the number of pirates, though

9/6/2009 7:42:51 PM

^^ i see that, but i don't know where that data came from -- the figure is not a primary source

9/6/2009 9:02:44 PM

^^Responses like that remind me why it's a complete waste of time to engage you in an argument.

9/6/2009 10:42:33 PM

ok...

9/6/2009 11:39:49 PM

Quote :

"The arctic doesn't get much direct sunlight during winter, so it probably wouldn't be affected by the earth being further away like it would in summer, if indeed the wobble would cause it to be. "

do you not know the difference between the earth's wobble and the earth's tilt? what the fuck were you even trying to say there? shit like this is why it's a complete waste of time for you to even try to engage in an argument.

FYI, the wobble does not coincide with the seasons.

9/6/2009 11:43:33 PM

You know, I'm not sure any of us really fully understand the findings of this study, so I'm going to move on.

[Edited on September 7, 2009 at 12:05 AM. Reason : .]

9/7/2009 12:00:39 AM

right. none of us are smart enough to comprehend such things. we should trust the experts. You know, the ones who are rigging data sets, like James Hansen, right? or maybe Michael Mann and his highly reproducible hockey stick, right?

admit it, you talked out your ass, and you got put in your place

9/7/2009 4:38:52 PM

Oh for Christ's sake, stop. Nobody has referenced either of those two figures as an authority for a dozen pages and yet you still insist upon pulling them out as boogeymen instead of actually addressing the subject at hand. It's tiresome.

9/7/2009 4:51:38 PM

Quote :

"^^Responses like that remind me why it's a complete waste of time to engage you in an argument."

9/7/2009 5:10:56 PM

I pull it out whenever anyone tries the "oh, trust the experts" bullshit.

9/7/2009 5:24:58 PM

but aaronburro, the IPCC are the experts. You can trust those scientists politicians

[Edited on September 8, 2009 at 10:32 AM. Reason : ack]

9/8/2009 10:32:30 AM

So, carzak, are you gonna discuss anything, or are you just going to continue to tell us how much smarter you are?

9/8/2009 11:39:21 AM

Anyone who believes global warming is real lets me know how smart they are right there. The sun is fucking hot! There is not a goddamn thing humans can do to change it. We should blow that motherfucker up, that would solve the problem. Its always in my fucking eyes.

9/8/2009 4:35:49 PM

Good news for red meat lovers! (like me)

Quote :

"Study rebuts UN livestock study Researchers measure animals' true effect on greenhouse gases By TIM HEARDEN Capital Press Researchers at the University of California-Davis are set to rebut a 2006 United Nations study that asserted that livestock operations are responsible for 18 percent of the world's greenhouse gases. In a journal article due out Oct. 1, the research will demonstrate that American beef and dairy production accounts for a much lower percentage of the gases believed to cause global warming. The study, titled "Clearing the Air: Livestock's Contribution to Climate Change," makes use of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports that agriculture as a whole emits only 5.8 percent of the nation's greenhouse gases, said Frank Mitloehner, a livestock air quality specialist who worked on the project. In California, where about 20 percent of U.S. cows reside and produce some 280 million pounds of manure a day, state officials say only 5.4 percent of greenhouse gases come from agriculture, Mitloehner said. Researchers have also found that livestock accounts for a far lower level of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which combine with oxides of nitrogen to create smog, than had been previously thought. "Cars produce way more smog-producing gases than cows or steers ever will," Mitloehner told a room full of cattle producers in Palo Cedro, Calif.. The UC-Davis study was funded by numerous organizations including the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, which was concerned about negative media coverage of beef following the UN's report, "Livestock's Long Shadow." The UN asserted that on a worldwide scale, livestock creates more greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone than does transportation. Further, it said livestock causes 40 percent of all methane and 65 percent of all nitrous oxide. Based on the study, news organizations have erroneously applied the percentages to livestock operations in the United States, and even to individual states, Mitloehner said. However, the EPA has found that livestock is responsible for less than 3 percent of America's global warming-related emissions, he said. The U.S. has a very small amount of the world's livestock, agriculture and livestock-related greenhouse gases, and its transportation system is much more advanced than in many undeveloped countries, he said. The U.N. lists the clear-cutting of forests for livestock production as the No. 1 contributor to livestock-related climate change, but the U.S. is growing its forest land, Mitloehner said. To determine the actual emissions from cattle, UC-Davis' research team studied Holstein and Angus calves and cows of various sizes and measured all sorts of gases. The study made use of the unique conditions of California's Central Valley, which creates a "perfect trough" to trap air pollution, Mitloehner said. The research was completed in late 2008 and its findings have been undergoing a peer review. Among its discoveries was that the researchers found higher methane levels depending on what the animal was fed, on its metabolism and other factors, Mitloehner said. The "take-home message" when it comes to dairies was that lagoons are the smallest source of VOCs, while the biggest source on a dairy is silage, he said. "That finding has completely changed the perception of dairies," he said. "Now, it's 'What can we do to manage the feed?' ... Silage will be the biggest area of research in the coming year." "

http://www.capitalpress.com/california/TH-warming-090409-corrected

9/10/2009 9:00:33 AM

sounds like a bit of a BS study, to me. They complain that the US's livestock output is 5.6%, as opposed to the UN's 20% number. And the article even says as much, that the UN is looking at the entire world, not just the US.

Of course the US's numbers are lower. We drive a hell of a lot more and have far less mass-transit than other nations

9/10/2009 4:12:40 PM

9/17/2009 9:46:20 AM

In regards to the recent warm spike on that chart, NOAA "fixed" the numbers to fit the political agenda.

Quote :

"NOAA: Warmest Global Sea-Surface Temperatures for August and Summer From the NOAA press release, just in time for Copenhagen. Of course the satellite record for August tells another story that is not quite so alarming as NCDC’s take on it. AMS Fellow and CCM, Joe D’Aleo of ICECAP has this to say about it:. Icecap Note: to enable them to make the case the oceans are warming, NOAA chose to remove satellite input into their global ocean estimation and not make any attempt to operationally use Argo data in the process. This resulted in a jump of 0.2C or more and ‘a new ocean warmth record’ in July. ARGO tells us this is another example of NOAA’s inexplicable decision to corrupt data to support political agendas."

what a surprise!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/16/noaa-warmest-global-sea-surface-temperatures-for-august-and-summer/

9/17/2009 12:37:31 PM

no. choosing data that supports your conclusion is all part of the scientific process. come on, man

9/17/2009 8:54:57 PM

Interesting article on some of the data used for climate change research:

Quote :

"Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December. Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared. Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, and they aren’t talking much. And what little they are saying makes no sense."

http://tinyurl.com/yeh35j5


I'd be interested in hearing from anyone on TWW who has extensive knowledge in this field about where exactly the climate change data comes from.

9/24/2009 9:09:57 PM

There are several different types of proxies for figuring out past temperatures on earth. Things like ocean bed sentiment, lake bed sentiment, tree rings, and ice cores. For the last several hundred years surface stations have been built to monitor temperatures, but they're not standard across the board. The US is pretty much regarded as having the most accurate temperature measuring stations over the last 150 years, however this year it's been shown that up to 85% of them have been recording biased data due to placement near parking lots, sidewalks, AC units, waste treatment plants, etc.

The most accurate data, of course, is satellite data which has only been around for 15 years or so. Also, of note the satellite data has shown no temperature increase in the last 10 years, and in fact cooling the last few years that is enough to cancel out all the warming of the 20th century.

9/24/2009 9:58:31 PM

it's questionable if the true data is actually "missing." I think i remember hearing that some UK agency claimed the hard numbers were "missing" and lost forever when asked for it under the british version of a FOIA request.

But, yes, when you can't even provide the data that all of the theories, conjectures, and, most importantly, models are based on on, it's hard to really put any credibility behind the results from said things.

Again, though, don't let inconvenient facts like that distract you from the real issue at hand, saving the world

9/24/2009 9:58:57 PM

Curious: What do you think the inspiration behind a movement in favor of fighting climate change?

Is it:

1) Idiots doing stupid things, making false data and bad observations and interpreting them so as to make it seem things are bad, and just generally, massively tripping over their own feet or

2) A vast conspiracy by the IPCC and Al Gore to control the world

Cause really, it's one of those things in your mind, isn't it.

9/25/2009 3:09:38 PM

If scientists don't convince people that there are big problems they need to investigate, why would the government give them research grants? Answer: they wouldn't, and scientists have to put food on the table too

I just wish a lot of the money that goes into researching climate change could go to something like cancer research...you know, researching something we KNOW FOR A FACT IS ALREADY KILLING tens of thousands of people each year? Maybe we should spend billions researching asteroids, since one might kill us in the future

^this is one of the reasons I don't post much about climate change in TSB anymore despite having plenty of background in it...because people treat it like a political issue and not a scientific issue


[Edited on September 25, 2009 at 3:26 PM. Reason : .]

9/25/2009 3:22:09 PM

The fact that environmentalists are tripping over themselves to rename global warming as "climate change" is all the proof I need that the science doesn't exist to support either argument.

9/25/2009 4:24:59 PM

^ Theyve been calling it climate change since the mid 90s… “climate change” is what I was taught back in middle school.

9/26/2009 12:43:24 AM

personal anecdotes are great.

9/26/2009 5:18:31 PM

Seriously, they’ve been calling it climate change forever. I’m sorry that reality disappoints you, but you’ll have to get over that.

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SJ&s_site=mercurynews&p_multi=SJ&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB72DF92BA1038E&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date&s_trackval=GooglePM

1988

It looks like there was a spike in the use of the term “climate change” then in the national media.

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=“Climate+change%22&scoring=t&hl=en&ned=us&um=1&sa=N&sugg=d&as_ldate=1988&as_hdate=1989&lnav=hist4

[Edited on September 26, 2009 at 5:28 PM. Reason : ]

9/26/2009 5:25:03 PM

I'm sure some people have been calling it "climate change" since then. However, the vast majority of people have been calling it "Global Warming" for a while. The majority of people only started calling it "climate change" in the past couple years, as it has become more and more evident that the earth is cooling. Hell, THIS FUCKING THREAD is called "Global Warming," for crying out loud.

9/26/2009 7:03:42 PM

what’s your point?

Scientist have understood it as climate change since forever. Who cares if the media or people as a shorthand call it global warming?

You’ll probably still see people calling it global warming and climate change interchangeably for the foreseeable future.

But it’s not like it’s a “new” thing that what we know as “global warming” would more aptly be called “climate change."

9/26/2009 7:56:35 PM

no. it's just convenient that the name has changed in the public campaign to snow the populace

9/26/2009 8:02:56 PM