http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/11/12/greenland.ice.cap.melting.faster.ever

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/11/12/record.high.temperatures.far.outpace.record.lows.across.us

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html

11/12/2009 4:10:45 PM

too bad the greenland ice sheet still won't melt completely for another 1000 years... Oh, and sea-level rise still hasn't accelerated away from its historical rise for the past 1000 years... Meaning that whatever Greenland is losing, it's being made up for somewhere else.

and record highs outpace record lows? Whoopty fucking do. That's some junk science for you.

last article is interesting. it seems to point out the fact that we still don't know all that much about our climate system. it also shows that the IPCC estimates are grossly over-estimated.

11/12/2009 10:06:12 PM

i like this one and this one, but not this one? that's not very scientific of you.

11/12/2009 10:08:19 PM

what? I can't objectively review things now?

11/12/2009 10:39:18 PM

LOL

11/12/2009 10:52:43 PM

I always have to LOL at the hysteria surrounding sea level rise.

"OMFG!! Sea levels are rising at a rate of 2 or 3 millimeters per year!! Run for your lives!!!"

Find something else to freak out about, really. Sea levels have been rising a couple millimeters each year for a few millenia now. Even with temperatures at their highest levels in hundreds of years, there has been barely any acceleration in sea-level rise. It's just not nearly the kind of problem that people make it out to be.

There are much more pressing problems than the fact that sea levels rise a few millimeters per year, much like they have for the past 22,000 years or so.


[Edited on November 13, 2009 at 1:08 AM. Reason : 2]

11/13/2009 1:03:51 AM

^It's nice of you guys to provide unsupported opinion for us. I value it highly.

Meanwhile:

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/07/27/new.predictions.sea.level.rise

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/10/28/north.carolina.sea.levels.rising.3.times.faster.previous.500.years.penn.study.says

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/10/09/rising.sea.levels.are.increasing.risk.flooding.along.south.coast.england

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/10/06/new.coastland.map.could.help.strengthen.sea.defenses

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/10/05/how.will.future.sea.level.rise.linked.climate.change.affect.coastal.areas

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/09/16/melting.greenland.ice.sheet.mapped

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/09/03/the.arctic.offers.more.evidence.human.influences.climate.change

11/13/2009 2:47:51 AM

^before looking at any of those links, but off the top of my head I can tell you that NC's sea level has been rising b/c the landmass has been sinking steadily ever since the last ice age.

From your first link:

Quote :

"The new model explains much of the variability observed over the past 22,000 years and, in response to the minimum (1.1 oC) and maximum (6.4 oC) warming projected for AD 2100 by the IPCC model, this new model predicts, respectively, 7 and 82 cm of sea-level rise by the end of this century. The IPCC model predicted a slightly narrower range of sea level rise – between 18 and 76 cm. "

So a model based off one of the IPCC's models. Yeah that's pretty accurate

The second article and third articles are nothing but scaremongering.

From 4th article:

Quote :

"Since the end of the last Ice Age 20,000 years ago, land and sea-levels around the UK coastline have changed in response to the retreat of the ice sheets. As the ice melted, the release of this enormous weight resulted in the landmass slowly tilting back up in the north or down in the south, a process called isostatic adjustment."

So b/c the land is still "righting itself" as a result of the glaciers from 10,000 years ago we should be more worried? This has barely anything to do with AGW.

The fifth article is just a big question, it's not reporting anything.

6th article talks about a new way to map elevation changes on Greenland, nothing more. Let me know when they come out with a new study predicting when Scandinavians can recolonize Greenland and farm there, that would be more interesting.

The last article:

Quote :

"A new study indicates that Arctic temperatures suddenly increased during the last 50 years of the period from 1 AD to the year 2000. Because this warming occurred abruptly during the 20th Century while atmospheric greenhouse gases were accumulating, these findings provide additional evidence that humans are influencing climate."

Ah, so no direct proof of anything really. That's good enough for me!

Quote :

"Georgia Tech: “50 percent of the [USA] warming that has occurred since 1950 is due to land use changes rather than greenhouse gases” County-level land-use changes from 1950 to 2000, based on censuses of population, housing, and agriculture. A) change in population density; B) change in land area settled at “exurban densities” (i.e., 1 house per 1 to 40 acres); C) change in percent cropland (Brown et al. 2005). From a Georgia Tech Press Release: Reducing Greenhouse Gases May Not Be Enough to Slow Climate Change Georgia Tech City and Regional Planning Professor Brian Stone publishes a paper in the December edition of Environmental Science and Technology that suggests policymakers need to address the influence of global deforestation and urbanization on climate change, in addition to greenhouse gas emissions. According to Stone’s paper, as the international community meets in Copenhagen in December to develop a new framework for responding to climate change, policymakers need to give serious consideration to broadening the range of management strategies beyond greenhouse gas reductions alone. “Across the U.S. as a whole, approximately 50 percent of the warming that has occurred since 1950 is due to land use changes (usually in the form of clearing forest for crops or cities) rather than to the emission of greenhouse gases,” said Stone. “Most large U.S. cities, including Atlanta, are warming at more than twice the rate of the planet as a whole – a rate that is mostly attributable to land use change. As a result, emissions reduction programs – like the cap and trade program under consideration by the U.S. Congress – may not sufficiently slow climate change in large cities where most people live and where land use change is the dominant driver of warming."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/11/georgia-tech-50-percent-of-the-usa-warming-that-has-occurred-since-1950-is-due-to-land-use-changes/

full article available here: http://pubs.acs.org/journal/esthag

[Edited on November 13, 2009 at 9:21 AM. Reason : Can we also blame humans for the lack of sunspots. It's probably from all our polluting.]

11/13/2009 8:54:36 AM

By the way, these articles aren't really for you. But thanks for putting your own spin on them.

11/13/2009 1:46:14 PM

I knew they were for Prawn Star, I have some degree of reading comprehension

11/14/2009 9:48:13 PM

Comprehensive study of CO2 emissions:

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/11/17/fossil.fuel.co2.emissions.29.percent.2000

Related article from BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8364926.stm

11/17/2009 3:04:03 PM

^another study monitoring the behavior of CO2 is always a good thing. More knowledge, more awareness.

On a not so related note...

Quote :

"AMS Survey of Weathercasters on Climate Change A survey of weathercasters’ feelings on global warming was published in this month’s edition of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. It had some interesting findings. There were 121 respondents. 94% of the respondents had at least one of the three major seals. Television meteorologists are the official scientists for most television stations. The overwhelming majority felt comfortable in that role for their stations. The majority agreed that the role of discussing climate change did fall to them. The eyebrow raising responses: “Respond to this IPCC conclusion: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.” Only 35% agreed or strongly agreed. 34% disagreed or strongly disagreed. “Most of the warming since 1950 is likely human induced.” A full 50% disagreed or strongly disagreed. 25% were neutral on this question. Only 8% strongly agreed. “Global climate models are reliable in their predictions for a warming of the planet.” Only 3% strongly agreed and another 16% agreed. A full 62% disagreed or strongly disagreed. “Respond to one TV weathercaster’s Quote saying “Global warming is a scam.” Responses were mixed. The largest percentage was neutral, at 26%. A total of 45% disagreed (23%) or strongly disagreed (22%). 19% of the respondents agreed with this statement and 10% strongly agreed. The amount of uncertainty found in this survey tells that even the most educated and motivated communicators are still uncertain about the truth on this issue. Interesting article. The entire text can be found at: http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/90/10/pdf/i1520-0477-90-10-1457.pdf "

[Edited on November 17, 2009 at 4:26 PM. Reason : weathermen!]

11/17/2009 4:06:49 PM

The conclusion of that study is that weathercasters are uninformed/misinformed about climate change, and it offers various solutions for that.

11/17/2009 5:00:45 PM

Quote :

"Carbon dioxide emissions will have to be all but eliminated by the end of this century if the world is to avoid a temperature rise of more than 2 ºC, scientists warned yesterday. And it might even be necessary to start sucking greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere."

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091117/full/news.2009.1092.html?s=news_rss

11/17/2009 5:31:59 PM

and they based this on... what, exactly? The models that still fail to predict what we are seeing today? Or is that based on the absurdly high CO2 forcing factor as posited by the IPCC?

11/17/2009 6:39:04 PM

Neither. I know it makes your head hurt, but read for yourself.

11/17/2009 7:36:05 PM

i did read it. it offered no details of how it arrived at this conclusion

Quote :

"The conclusion of that study is that weathercasters are uninformed/misinformed about climate change, and it offers various solutions for that."

hahaha. I like that line of thinking. "These people don't agree with us. They must be ignorant savages!"

11/17/2009 7:52:55 PM

Nearly the entire press release is devoted to describing how they arrived at their conclusion. If you want more detailed information than that, you will probably have to pay to subscribe to Nature, or contact the people who published the study.

11/17/2009 8:08:42 PM

Never mind that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere has a logarithmic effect, i.e. the more you add the less effect it has.

You do realize that the IPCC was created to study manmade global warming. It wasn't created to study IF manmade warming exists. It's interested how we skipped that step.

11/17/2009 11:06:42 PM

maybe you need to hone your reading skills, buddy. NOWHERE in the article does it say how they arrived at their conclusions. it just simply says they picked a random-assed number out of thin air and then said "OMFG WE GOTTA DO SOMETHING!!!"

11/18/2009 6:35:28 AM

Quote :

"In the first study of its kind, scientists in the project used a variety of the latest global climate models to determine the reductions needed to stabilize levels of greenhouse gases, termed CO2 equivalents, at 450 parts per million. That level, which offers a reasonable chance of keeping the temperature rise under 2ºC, is the goal of European climate policy. The results suggest that to achieve that target, emissions would have to drop to near zero by 2100. One of Ensemble's models predicted that by 2050, it might also be necessary to introduce new techniques that can actually pull CO2 out of the atmosphere. "

It's a press release. I really don't care if it doesn't go into enough detail for you, as if more detail would change your mind. You're already acting like they're making up numbers. If only you realized how retarded that makes you look.

11/18/2009 1:07:50 PM

450ppmv is an important number, b/c in the Boxer climate bill (or I could be mistaken and it might be in the Waxman bill) if CO2 hits 450ppmv then Obama's Administration is basically given carte blanche power to do whatever is necessary to reduce CO2 emissions.

11/18/2009 1:13:36 PM

Quote :

"Revenge of the Climate Laymen Global warming's most dangerous apostate speaks out about the state of climate change By ANNE JOLIS Barack Obama conceded over the weekend that no successor to the Kyoto Protocol would be signed in Copenhagen next month. With that out of the way, it may be too much to hope that the climate change movement take a moment to reflect on the state of the science that is supposedly driving us toward a carbon-neutral future. But should a moment for self-reflection arise, campaigners against climate change could do worse than take a look at the work of Stephen McIntyre, who has emerged as one of the climate change gang's Most Dangerous Apostates. The reason for this distinction? He checked the facts. The retired Canadian businessman, whose self-described "auditing" a few years ago prompted a Congressional review of climate science, has once again thrown EnviroLand into a tailspin. In September, he revealed that a famous graph using tree rings to show unprecedented 20th century warming relies on thin data. Since its publication in 2000, University of East Anglia professor Keith Briffa's much-celebrated image has made star appearances everywhere from U.N. policy papers to activists' posters. Like other so-called "hockey stick" temperature graphs, it's an easy sell—one look and it seems Gadzooks! We're burning ourselves up! "It was the belle of the ball," Mr. McIntyre told me on a recent phone call from Ontario. "Its dance card was full." At least until Mr. McIntyre reported that the modern portion of that graph, which shows temperatures appearing to skyrocket in the last 100 years, relies on just 12 tree cores in Russia's Yamal region. When Mr. McIntyre presented a second graph, adding data from 34 tree cores from a nearby site, the temperature spike disappears. Mr. Briffa denounces Mr. McIntyre's work as "demonstrably biased" because it uses "a narrower area and range of sample sites." He says he and his colleagues have now built a new chronology using still more data. Here, as in similar graphs by other researchers, the spike soars once again. Mr. McIntyre's "work has little implication for our published work or any other work that uses it," Mr. Briffa concludes. He and his colleagues may well ignore Mr. McIntyre, but the rest of us shouldn't. While Mr. McIntyre's image may use data from fewer sites, it still has nearly three times as many tree cores representing the modern era as Mr. Briffa's original. Yet Mr. McIntyre is first to admit his work is no bullet aimed at the heart of the theory of man-made climate change. Rather, his work—chronicled in papers co-written with environmental economist Ross McKitrick and more than 7,000 posts on his Climateaudit.org Weblog—does something much more important: It illustrates the uncertainty of a science presented as so infallible as to justify huge new taxes on rich countries along with bribes to poor ones in order to halt their fossil-fueled climbs to prosperity. Mr. McIntyre offers what many in the field do not: rigor. It all started in 2002 when—as many might given the time and Mr. McIntyre's mathematics background—he decided to verify for himself the case for action on climate change. "It was like a big crossword puzzle," he told me. "Business was a bit slow at the time, so I started reading up." Prior to the Briffa graph revelation, he had also caught a statistical error that undercut another exalted "hockey stick" graph prominently featured by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC, this one by Michael Mann, head of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center. Alerts about review boards' seemingly lax standards litter his blog, highlighting in particular the IPCC, which has used both the Mann and Briffa graphs in its reports. In 2007, Mr. McIntyre found a technical gaffe that forced NASA to correct itself and admit that 1934, not 1998, was the warmest year recorded in the continental U.S. "At the beginning I innocently assumed there would be due diligence for all this stuff. … So often my mouth would drop, when I realized no one had really looked into it." Even more innocently, he assumed the billion-dollar climate change industry would welcome his untrained but painstaking work. Instead, Mr. McIntyre is subjected to every kind of venom—that he must be funded by Big Oil, by Big Business, by Some Texan Somewhere. For the record, the 62-year-old declares himself "past my best-by date, operating on my own nickel." James Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute, has dismissed him as a "court jester." Mr. Mann replied to an emailed query about Mr. McIntyre by decrying "every specious contrarian claim and innuendo against me, my colleagues, and the science of climate change itself." Others are more thick-skinned: "You mention his name in my community, people just smile. It's a one-liner to get a laugh out of a group of climate scientists," affirms Stanford University's Stephen Schneider. One wonders what is so funny, when it is not only the Canadian hobbyist fueling skepticism, but also figures from the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center that now show thickening Arctic ice; from the U.K. Met (Meteorological) Office showing falling temperatures that contradict modeling predictions; and other studies that suggest natural factors in climate change are being dramatically underestimated. Climatologists say they will only take Mr. McIntyre seriously if he creates his own temperature reconstructions and submits them for peer review. But the best science should stand up even to outside scrutiny. And if Mr. McIntyre has a credibility problem with climatologists, climatologists' predictions are increasingly viewed skeptically by the public. A Pew report last month revealed that the number of Americans who believe humans are causing climate change has dropped 11 percentage points in the last 18 months to 36%; that the number who feel there is solid evidence that the earth is warming has fallen by 14 points to 57%; and that those who think the issue is "very serious" has sunk nine points to 35%. Mr. McIntyre declares no interest in debunking The Theory in toto, nor in discouraging efficient energy use. His blog will disappoint those seeking anything more political than technical analyses. In fairness, researchers are far from the loudest voices telling "skeptics" like Mr. McIntyre to sit down, shut up and surrender their lightbulbs without further question—that megaphone belongs to the politicians and activists pushing centrally-planned economies in the name of saving the Earth. Here, we see that contempt for laymen is not universal: Al Gore's ignorance is happily overlooked given his power to push billions in research funding. The same goes for Barack Obama, Leonardo DiCaprio, and everyone else declaring "the debate is over." I asked 10 climatologists what they thought was the most reliable method of predicting climate, and got nearly as many answers. People in the field compare climate studies to health studies—another complex mechanism with uncontrollable factors, where best practices will always be debated. Climate researchers know their prescriptions don't carry the certainty laymen assume from that which is labeled "science," yet most shy from a straightforward account of this uncertainty. "Methods certainly need to be continually refined and improved. I doubt that anyone in the paleoclimate community would disagree with that," says Rob Wilson of the University of St. Andrews's School of Geography and Geosciences. "However, can the nuances of methodological developments be communicated to the laymen—and would they want to know? I do not think this would help." Maybe not, but letting people feel duped by hyperbole is proving even more harmful to the warmers' cause. "I never said I was proving or disproving anything…. I just don't think we should be thanking the people who make it harder to find out what's true," Mr. McIntyre says. The climate establishment will probably never thank Mr. McIntyre, much less follow his example. The rest of us should do both. "

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704335904574496850939846712.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Some interesting points brought up in this piece.

11/18/2009 2:01:13 PM

So to sum up the interesting points:
-imaginary billion-dollar climate change industry is mean to a bumbling, yet well-meaning old man
-the number of people who are concerned about global warming has declined

11/18/2009 4:09:52 PM

Quote :

"It's a press release. I really don't care if it doesn't go into enough detail for you, as if more detail would change your mind."

that is some grade A backtracking right there.

Quote :

"You're already acting like they're making up numbers."

Considering that that is what has occurred on many other high-profile pro-AGW studies (hockey stick produced by the NY phone book, what?), I'd say it's fair to be skeptical.

Quote :

"Mr. Briffa denounces Mr. McIntyre's work as "demonstrably biased" because it uses "a narrower area and range of sample sites.""

That is hilarious that this guy is trying to make that claim. The dude used TWELVE TREES. Count them, TWELVE. I mean, jesus, when you pick only twelve data points in a field that is used to using hundreds, it makes your work look hideously suspect. twelve? And suddenly someone else is using narrow selection areas? Really? Really?

11/18/2009 8:48:15 PM

Quote :

"At least until Mr. McIntyre reported that the modern portion of that graph, which shows temperatures appearing to skyrocket in the last 100 years, relies on just 12 tree cores in Russia's Yamal region."

Not a very good start to the article....

11/18/2009 8:49:56 PM

what do u mean

11/18/2009 8:53:42 PM

Quote :

"The battle against global warming could be helped if the world slowed population growth by making free condoms and family planning advice more widely available, the U.N. Population Fund said Wednesday ... The U.N. Population Fund acknowledged it had no proof of the effect that population control would have on climate change."

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2009/11/17/3514921-un-fight-climate-change-with-free-condoms

Okay, this is just funny.

11/18/2009 10:28:07 PM

^^^

Quote :

"Not a very good start to the article...."

Dude, you fail at reading comprehension.

^lol, good shit! I'm all for banging with no consequence

11/18/2009 11:56:05 PM

I don't know, perhaps you could direct me to where my reading comprehension fails? There are many "Hocky stick" reconstructions, some do include tree ring proxies and some do not. None that I know depend upon the proxies for its shape.

The second thing about the article that I find amusing is that the article claims McIntyre brings rigor to the field. How does the author of the piece know that? Usually you have to understand quite a lot about a field before you can comment upon the quality of the work in it. Are they experts in dendrochronology? This dendrochronoligist thinks McIntyre doesn't understand what he is doing:
http://delayedoscillator.wordpress.com/

Maybe rigor means you write a sciency looking weblog. Brilliant! That will make my job much easier since banging out weblog posts is much easier than scientific writing.

11/20/2009 12:21:21 AM

actually, rigor in this case pertains to the fact that he actually looks at the methodology to see if it is statistically sound. If you know anything about his work, you know that he completely busted the hockey stick. The one that practically started this whole mess. And he busted it hard. And he did so via some pretty astounding circumstances. He does far more than just write a fancy blog. As well, if you knew anything about tree rings, you would know that they are terrible proxies for temperature wrt to CO2, because CO2 directly affects the tree ring size.

11/20/2009 12:29:18 AM

^^okay let's go over this one more time. You said

Quote :

"Quote : "At least until Mr. McIntyre reported that the modern portion of that graph, which shows temperatures appearing to skyrocket in the last 100 years, relies on just 12 tree cores in Russia's Yamal region." Not a very good start to the article...."

McIntyre is pointing out that the original report relied on JUST 12 TREE CORES. It's not his report, it's the one he's showing to be biased. Make sense now?

11/20/2009 9:00:46 AM

Leading British climate research center hacked by global warming deniers, content stolen and republished on websites:

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091120/full/news.2009.1101.html?s=news_rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+news%2Frss%2Fmost_recent+%28NatureNews+-+Most+recent+articles%29

11/20/2009 2:18:37 PM

Why wouldn't the climate center be for full disclosure? Global warming is of course real, so whats the worst that could get out from all their emails and files?

11/20/2009 2:30:04 PM

11/20/2009 2:35:43 PM

11/20/2009 3:15:26 PM

11/20/2009 3:28:47 PM

Quote :

"Why wouldn't the climate center be for full disclosure?"

11/20/2009 3:41:58 PM

I like how that article mentioned Mann's discredited hockey stick. Really? That's the kind of "science" you want to hold on to? The kind of science that produces the same conclusion, even when you throw NONSENSE DATA at it?

11/20/2009 3:42:58 PM

Quote :

"Why wouldn't the climate center be for full disclosure?"

Any institution has private internal documents.

11/20/2009 3:43:40 PM

no they don't! they should even be putting their personal letters online!

11/20/2009 3:45:04 PM

And hacking into their systems and stealing those documents is wrong and illegal, I am not saying what they did was right.

I'm just wondering if some of the big AGW proponents in this thread are nervous that something research/data related will get out that acknowledges collusion. I could care less about their private internal documents. What I would be interested in would be things related to climate change.

11/20/2009 3:45:48 PM

Are they not a public institution? Therefore, should not the data have been public already?

11/20/2009 3:53:55 PM

Its a British institution, so I'm not sure how their laws are setup, compared to if it were an American institution

11/20/2009 4:08:00 PM

Quote :

"Are they not a public institution? "

So is the library but you don't have access to everyone's e-mail there do you?

11/20/2009 4:25:41 PM

Cause emails are the only thing on the library's servers

They said emails and "documents" were stolen. Furthermore, emails at a public institution (on a public institutions' domain) should all pertain to work relating to that public institution. They shouldn't be using that account for personal things that they don't want seen in the first place.

11/20/2009 4:36:37 PM

Ok, so I guess as taxpayers we have complete access to all of NC State's documents.

Let's go look at them!

11/20/2009 4:51:53 PM

We probably do legally have the right to access most of them

But thats not my point. The documents in question were stolen. They obviously weren't obtained legally. But they should still all be related to climate change research. In which case, what have they got to hide?

Yeah, we're doing our due diligence to investigate climate change, but um, yeah you can't see this data we used or this conversation we had about the data

11/20/2009 4:55:06 PM

You honestly can't think of a reason why a Science based institution would want to keep elements regarding its research private?

11/20/2009 5:03:53 PM

Elements like what? I think the data itself, as well as whatever models and discussions about that climate data, shouldn't be private for any good reason. What is the harm in that? Its not like its going to compromise national security or anything.

I don't need to see payables reports or personal information or anything like that. I'm talking about the stuff relating to their actual research.

11/20/2009 5:08:35 PM