by Jack
As of today, arctic ice is supposed to be almost gone, melted away by the unrelenting heat of man-made greenhouses gases. This dire prediction was made by none other than the man who invented the internet, former Vice President, Al Gore. He is the foremost spokesperson on global warming and as a result Mr. Gore has multiplied his wealth many times over from speaking fees, book and movie deals on global warming. His work “An Uncomfortable Truth” landed him a Nobel Prize.
Al Gore did not ever say the arctic ice would be gone by now, however, he did quote several authorities who predicted it would be in this 2007 speech: “Last September 21 (2007), as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.” Gore gave it a little more time, saying it would be 2014 at the earliest before the ice is gone.
How are these predictions working out? Well, let me quote from another article just 3 days old, “Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometers MORE than 2 years ago…” and “…Arctic ice cap has expanded for second year in row. An area twice the size of Alaska – America’s biggest state – was open water two years ago and is now covered in ice.” This is based on satellite images taken from University of Illinois’s Cryosphere project. They show ice has become more concentrated and thicker. Source, click here.
We’re still seeing a long term decline, say scientists and this in keeping with climate change that is enhanced by green house gases from humans and other sources.
“The most widely used measurements of Arctic ice extent are the daily satellite readings issued by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is co-funded by NASA. These reveal that – while the long-term trend still shows a decline – last Monday, August 25, the area of the Arctic Ocean with at least 15 per cent ice cover was 5.62 million square kilometers.
This was the highest level recorded on that date since 2006 (see graph, right), and represents an increase of 1.71 million square kilometers over the past two years – an impressive 43 per cent.
Other figures from the Danish Meteorological Institute suggest that the growth has been even more dramatic. Using a different measure, the area with at least 30 per cent ice cover, these reveal a 63 per cent rise – from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometers.”
“We’re still seeing a long term decline”
Do you see how this absolutely contradicts the claims of climate change deniers, and undercuts the purpose of Rose’s Daily Mail article?
The Daily Mail is a British tabloid, and it is absolutely notorious for misrepresenting scientific research, especially on the issue of climate change.
Slate debunks the latest spin from the Mail:
“Sigh. Here we go again.
The Daily Mail and Mail Online are to scientific accuracy what a sledgehammer is to an egg. Especially when it comes to global warming.
David Rose is oftentimes the wielder of that sledgehammer. He’s written error-laden climate articles in the past, like saying that global warming has stopped (no, it hasn’t), that the world is cooling (no, it really really isn’t), and that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to hold a crisis meeting because Rose’s articles have caused such a fuss (that meeting never happened, which Rose had been told several times, but he still made the claim). Other examples abound.
This time, in Sunday’s Mail Online he writes that Arctic sea ice, which hit a major record low in 2012, “has expanded for the second year in succession.”
This claim is a humdinger, and typical denial double-speak. It’s technically true, but also really wrong. It’s like examining someone who has a 106° fever and saying it’s really made their skin glow. But what do you expect from an article that has this breathless headline:
Myth of arctic meltdown: Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago…despite Al Gore’s prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now
“Myth of arctic meltdown” is enough to tell you just how slanted and wrong the conclusions of this article will be … and the inclusion of Al Gore’s name brings it home. Mentioning Gore is at best a distraction, red meat to the deniers. Gore isn’t a climate scientist, and as we well know actual climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that the world is warming. One of the outcomes of this is the decline of Arctic sea ice.
Phil Plait
PHIL PLAIT
Phil Plait writes Slate’s Bad Astronomy blog and is an astronomer, public speaker, science evangelizer, and author of Death From the Skies!
Briefly: Arctic sea ice reaches a minimum in late September every year. The overall trend for the amount of ice at that time is decreasing; in other words, there is less ice all the time. Some years there is more than others, some less. But the trend is down, down, down.
In 2012, a mix of unusual causes created conditions where the minimum reached a record low, far below normal. The next year, in 2013, the ice didn’t reach quite so low a minimum extent, and this year looks very much the same as 2013. But saying the ice is “recovering” is, to put it delicately, what comes out the south end of a north-facing bull. You can’t compare two years with a record low the year before that was due to unusual circumstances; you have to look at the average over time.
Of course, if you do, your claims that global warming isn’t real melt away…”
More evidence, with graphs showing the clear downward trend, at the link.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/09/01/global_warming_denial_claims_of_arctic_ice_recovering_are_exaggerated.html
Chris I put that in for a reason. There is merit in global warming, but it’s not like it’s being sold by the liberal left. We ALL need to see the big picture and not take silly costly measures that will be of no value, but would make us vulnerable to competitive forces and thereby undermine our economic and national security. I knew you would attack the article because it was from the daily mail, but fortunately they have cited credible sources and that is what I relied on, not the Daily Mail as a scientific authority and you should too. Either the ice is there or it isn’t. Doesn’t matter who claims it is, but rather that it is… or do you not agree?
Skeptical Science has more on Rose’s history of deception regarding ice caps:
“Rose pulls out all the stops
At Skeptical Science, we have previously pre-bunked and debunked and debunked again David Rose’ articles on the subject of climate change, but he appears oblivious to legitimate criticism of his work. This time he pulls out all the stops. It’s so bad that it’s difficult to know where to start with this piece, but to begin at the beginning, as Dylan Thomas would have said, we have the headline. “Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year with top scientists warning of global COOLING”, it squawks.
A casual reader, somebody not that familiar with the subject, might well interpret that and go away thinking that for the last twelve months, the Arctic ‘ice-cap’ has been getting bigger all the time. Let’s clear a few things up. Firstly, it’s the Arctic sea-ice that Rose is referring to, which is rarely if ever termed an ice-cap. Ice-caps are the elevated ice-sheets that sit atop of landmasses – such as Greenland and Antarctica – hence the word ‘cap’. So to the Arctic sea-ice: we’re not yet at the annual minimum that marks the climax of the melting-season, of course, but it is true that 2013 has not ‘done a spectacular’ in the way that 2012 did. Conditions in the Arctic have not favoured a massive melt-out this year: instead, the sea-ice extent decrease has behaved in a rather similar manner to the 2010 season and in recent weeks has followed almost the same course. Here are a couple of dataplots, first the extent from IARC-JAXA and then the anomaly compared to other years from the National Snow and Ice Data Center:
Both plots clearly show that 2013 has been a weak melting-season, compared to the phenomenal melts of 2007 and 2012. It was always unlikely that 2012 would be followed by a second record – there’s too much noise around in the climate to make that likely. For the same reason that throwing two sixes with a pair of dice twice on two successive turns is rather unlikely (to put it mildly), fairly chaotic natural systems tend, most of the time, to trend towards the statistical mean. This is so frequently observed that it has a technical term: ‘regression towards the mean’.
But Rose takes the following seasonal cycle (September 7th data were the last figures he could have used before the piece was published) and applies an unique spin to it…”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/neverending-daily-mail-nonsense.html
And here are all the times the Daily Mail claimed that a “cure for cancer” had been found. According to the Mail, cures include: “spectacular drugs,” polio, the sun, Jasper the rescue dog, Botox injections, and the pope.
Sounds legit!
http://www.buzzfeed.com/kellyoakes/things-that-cured-cancer-in-2013-according-to-mail-online?utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=buzzfeed#34a5yt2
Jack, I agree that we all need to see the “big picture,” but that’s why I find articles like this one so unhelpful. Instead of focusing on the obvious downward trend, which is what matters, the author acts as if you can take one year as evidence of a “recovery.” The important thing is that the arctic sea ice is clearly melting at an alarming rate.
I also agree that we shouldn’t take absurdly costly measures. I support market-based solutions like cap-and-trade, a policy that was supported by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Unfortunately the Republican party of today does not agree and now assails those common-sense measures as “socialist” inventions of the left, which is simply not true.
Global warming is a load of cr@pola and those who gain to stand by it financially (algore and the goldman sachs white shoe boys among others) or brainwashed sheep (like Chris) are pushing it.
US physics professor: ‘Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/
r. Gore has multiplied his wealth many times over from speaking fees, book and movie deals on global warming. His work “An Uncomfortable Truth” landed him a Nobel Prize.
That’s nothing compared to what his carbon credits trading firm stands to make.
Bob appreciate your comments, especially the one from the Physics professor. It’s pretty bad when a man has become ashamed of his chosen profession: ” I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.”
Good article in CNS News:
Chris I don’t know if those so-called cancer cure articles were indeed feature articles or if they were advertisement articles but if they were the latter the joke is on you for not realizing that that is what they are.
As I wrote before when you made the assertion that a tabloid can’t be trusted for content that the (accurate) John Edwards story broke in the National Inquirer, a tabloid paper. Also Matt Drudge broke the Monica Lewinski story (Mainstream media was too busy playing patty cake with the Clintons to notice their dirt).
The problem with the global warming hoax is that it has been exposed by qualified scientists and cutting edge journalists who were willing to question and dig for the truth. They came forward to inform the world that the science is not settled, the causes for warming and cooling are almost entirely natural, and we do very little to affect it.
There is no reason to stop pursuing better ways of doing things. Research and development are good.
There is every reason to get politics out of the field of science to put politicians back in the cage, keep the scientists honest, and make sure taxpayers and consumers are free of unnecessary expense and inconvenience.
Oh, and I should have mentioned this article just published at the world renowned science blog, Watts Up with That:
“Tee hee,” as our dear friend Libby oft said.
Bob, “Climategate” was exposed as a nothingburger by every single investigation into the issue. It was based on nonscientists not understanding what the term “hide the decline” meant, as well as other misrepresentations. The scientists accused of misconduct were cleared of all wrongdoing over and over.
The fact is that multiple studies have shown over 90% of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic global warming is occurring. The data, including the melting trend of arctic ice, which is confirmed in this very article, confirm their theories. If this is a fraud, it’s a huge one–too big a conspiracy to be believable.
Harold Lewis did not always believe AGW was a “scam:”
In 1992 Dr. Lewis wrote “All models agree that the net effect will be a general and global warming of the earth; they only disagree about how much. None suggest that it will be a minor effect, to be ignored while we go about our business.” He writes further demonstrating considerable understanding of the topic “the bottom line is that the Earth will be substantially warmed by the accumulation of man-made gases mainly carbon dioxide… The only option in the long run is to decrease the amount of waste gases in the atmosphere.” [7]
At what point Dr Lewis changed his view and why is unknown. But it begs the observation that if any of the allegations in Dr. Lewis’s letter were true then some culpability would attach to himself as a government scientist in his earlier days. Moreover, as the author of Technological Risk why was Dr. Lewis writing as a convinced proponent of climate change in the 1990s instead of alerting the world to the “most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen?”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hal_Lewis
The American Physical Society has responded to Harold Lewis’ allegations:
“In response to Lewis’s letter, the APS took the unusual step of issuing a public statement on Tuesday. The society says there is “no truth to Dr Lewis’s assertion that APS policy statements are driven by financial gain,” adding that the “specific charge that APS as an organization is benefiting financially from climate-change funding is equally false”.
“The APS adheres to rigorous ethical standards in developing its statements,” the statement says. “Neither the operating officers nor the elected leaders of the society have a monetary stake in [climate-change] funding.” The statement adds that, because relatively few APS members conduct climate-change research, the vast majority of the society’s members “derive no personal benefit from such research support”. APS press secretary Tawanda Johnson told physicsworld.com that the society released the statement to defend its reputation in the face of the accusations.
Gavin Schmidt, a climate physicist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, denies Lewis’s claim that research in climate change is congruent with financial gain. “People don’t get paid to get results,” he says. “Funding pays for postdocs, graduate students and equipment.” Schmidt adds the issue raised by Lewis is “a manufactured story” to make people believe there is some discontent in the profession.”
Given the money, fame and attention to be had in the denialsphere, funded as it is by big oil interests, it’s more likely that Lewis is the one tailoring his opinion for financial gain.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/oct/14/aps-responds-to-climate-change-accusations
Tina, the fact that the most widely respected blog about the climate change debate on your side is run by a meteorologist should tell you something.
Tina: “As I wrote before when you made the assertion that a tabloid can’t be trusted for content that the (accurate) John Edwards story broke in the National Inquirer, a tabloid paper. Also Matt Drudge broke the Monica Lewinski story (Mainstream media was too busy playing patty cake with the Clintons to notice their dirt).”
Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and I’m not terribly impressed with the reliability of a genre that has had its largest success at breaking sex scandals.
But that doesn’t change the fact that the Daily Mail has a history of dishonesty when it comes to the climate change debate, a history which I have documented here, and which you have ignored. I have shown you multiple examples of scientists claiming that their work has been misrepresented by the Mail, and you ignore this evidence completely, probably because you don’t understand it. I have tried to get you to acknowledge basic scientific errors and when I do so you give me the internet equivalent of a blank look.
“The problem with the global warming hoax is that it has been exposed”
For “exposed,” read “lied about.”
Chris, quit grasping at these straw man arguments. The only question of any relevance is, is the arctic ice melting as predicted or not? The evidence is now conclusive, it’s not.
If Dewey had said it’s not melting as predicted and cited two scientific reports along with photographic evidence that any of us can plainly see and determine whether its melting or not as projected, it doesn’t make the studies wrong because Dewey said it! This is a rule of law and it’s call prima faci evidence, or evidence that stands on it’s own merits. You however, choose to relentlessly attack the Daily Mail. Why? I know you are trying to discredit the Daily Mail, but again they are not the freaking issue! This is YOUR issue, it’s a loser and it has nothing to do with the evidence! This is about as black and white as it gets. You lost this one Chris…accept it, agree or look even more foolish.
On top of which, this is all just some flashy distraction from the latest arctic methane news. You are so easily distracted. It is truly pitiful.
Chris’s shameful and discredited scientists were vindicated by more lying scientists that have positioned themselves to make a bundle on scaring people to death so his excuses don’t impress me at all.
The global warming fanatics have made outlandish claims for decades complete with timelines that have now can be seen in the rear view mirror. We are all going to starve within twenty years, we’re going to freeze to death within a decade…oops sorry no, we’re going to fry. The Amazon will disappear within a decade. We will see the oceans rise by twenty feet…no wait it isn’t global warming its climate change’
And my all time favorite thing the alarmists keep trying to ignore, the power of the big yellow ball in the sky.
Alarmists are narcissists who believe humans have the power to greatly impact earths natural balancing features…we can compete with volcanic activity, the oceans tides, the suns activity, the changing seasons and the balancing, moderating flows in the climate. We can do great damage…such a complete crock!
It is a scam. it is science politicized for power and control. It provides a reason for government to direct the flow of grant money. It is an excuse for creating carbon exchange schemes that make the owners of the exchange a lot of money!
Libby joins the alarmists long-suffering scream:
Be afraid! be very afraid!! We have a theory!
This “discovery” means they’ve stumbled on something they’ve never seen before…BFD.
That doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened before (maybe many times) and it definitely doesn’t mean it’s a result of “human caused warming.”
Libby you narcissistic scaredy cats are ridiculously alarmist…give it up already.
Nothing wrong with studying the natural things that occur in our world but please, the drama is making you all look like a bunch of kooks.
From the Farms Almanac, which is reported to be about 80% accurate.
More Shivery And Shovelry! Read Our 2015 Winter Forecast.:
“This forecast is for the U.S. For the Canadian forecast, click here.
After the frigid, bitterly cold, and snow-filled winter last year, many of you are wondering just what this winter might bring. Could it possibly be as bad as last?
According to the 2015 edition of the Farmers’ Almanac, the winter of 2014–15 will see below-normal temperatures for about three-quarters of the nation. A large zone of very cold temperatures will be found from east of the Continental Divide east to the Appalachians. The most frigid temperatures will be found from the Northern Plains into the Great Lakes. The coldest outbreak of the season will come during the final week of January into the beginning of February, when frigid arctic air drops temperatures across the Northern Plains to perhaps 40 below zero. As the frigid air blows across the Great Lakes, snow showers and squalls will drop heavy amounts of snow to the lee of the Lakes.
No region will see prolonged spells of above-normal temperatures; only near the West and East Coasts will temperatures average close to normal.
Over the eastern third of the country, we are expecting an active storm track with a number of storms delivering copious amounts of snow and rain. Near-normal precipitation is expected for the Pacific Northwest, the Southwest States, and Northern Plains, while below-normal precipitation values are forecast for the Southwest States as well as the Upper Midwest and the Great Lakes. The Central and Southern Plains are expected to receive above-average precipitation.
We are “red flagging” the first 10 days of January and the first week of February along the Atlantic Seaboard for active wintry weather featuring bouts of heavy precipitation and strong winds. Another red flag timeframe for widespread wintry conditions is the middle part of March from the nation’s midsection to the East Coast.”
Continued..
http://farmersalmanac.com/weather/2014/08/24/2015-us-winter-forecast/
Remember the bitter cold most of the north-east experienced this last winter? Here’s a reminder for those who forgot.
Bitter cold: Temps expected to plunge 10 to 30 degrees below normal:
“(CNN) — Get ready to see the mercury plunge again.
Much of northern Plains, Midwest and Northeast will likely shiver through daytime high temperatures 10 to 30 degrees below normal through Wednesday, the National Weather Service said.
For example, Chicago could see a “high” temperature of minus-5 degrees Fahrenheit on Monday and minus-3 on Tuesday.
And a blizzard watch is in effect for North Dakota, parts of northeast South Dakota, western Minnesota and parts of central Iowa, where forecasts call for 2 to 6 inches of snow through Sunday and possible wind gusts of 60 mph.
New Orleans will see a high near 63 degrees Sunday, but by Tuesday residents there will have to prepare for highs only in the upper 30s.
In Atlanta, temperatures are expected to drop into the low 20s Monday night and the low teens Tuesday night.
Three cities have already set snowfall records for January: Detroit (31.5 inches), Flint, Michigan, (29.5 inches) and Toledo (36.4 inches). Fort Wayne, Indiana, and Indianapolis are experiencing their second snowiest January on record.
Jeffrey Goodman of Mentor, Ohio, snapped a photo of ice crystals for CNN iReport.
“It gets cold in northeast Ohio, but it’s been awhile since we have had this many days of temperatures in the single digits,” he said.
The bitterly cold winter is worsening a propane shortage that affects 12 million Americans who use the fuel to heat their homes.
Two dozen states have declared energy emergencies this winter, partly because propane supplies are running short while prices have risen sharply.
Supplies are short because of increased demand due to the cold weather and increased usage by corn farmers last fall who used it to dry a bumper crop of corn.
Some states, including Wisconsin, are allowing drivers of propane trucks to drive longer hours and increase the amount of propane carried in a single trip.
The shortage is especially acute for those who depend on propane to heat their homes during an extremely cold winter. Sandy DeHorn of Crete, Illinois, said the price per gallon recently rose to $5 from $2.69 per gallon.
“People are going to lose their houses,” DeHorn told CNN. “You have a choice, you either pay for the propane or for a house to live in. What are you going to do?”
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/25/us/winter-weather/index.html
Massive winter storm taking toll in power outages, canceled flights — and lives:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/13/us/winter-weather/index.html
Remember now the propane shortage, the warming stations and the coal shortage that came one station away from shutting power down to millions of people?
Based on what happened last year and the prediction for this year I hope everyone is preparing for another very cold winter and not taking the word that we’re in a global warming stage no matter where it’s published.
Oh yeah, I forgot about all of the cattle that froze to death last year too.
South Dakota ranchers reel after ‘catastrophic’ storm leaves up to 100,000 cattle dead:
“Kammerer painted a gruesome scene north of Rapid City, where a record 23 inches of snow fell.
“It’s just unreal,” he said. “There are cattle that are 8 or 9 miles away from the pasture they were in, just lying dead. And within that whole stretch, it’s just dead cow after dead cow, where they’ve gotten caught in dams, streams, fences, you name it. They’re dead everywhere.”
Carcasses of mature cows as well as calves were floating downstream local waterways in droves, Kammerer said, stoking fears of a potential outbreak of disease.
“If you don’t get those picked up and buried, you’re looking at the possibility of disease or possibly contamination,” he said. “You’ve got to get them all picked up.”
Most ranchers in the state lost anywhere between 50 to 75 percent of their herds, according to Silvia Christen, executive director of the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, which represents 1,500 ranching operations.
“We’re certainly looking at tens of thousands if not pushing 100,000 at this point,” she said of the dead livestock.
Aside from the economic losses, which will be severe once finally tallied, the unprecedented storm has left an “incredible emotional burden” on the state’s ranchers, Christen said.”
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/13/south-dakota-ranchers-reel-after-catastrophic-storm-leaves-up-to-100000-cattle/
Jack: “Chris, quit grasping at these straw man arguments. The only question of any relevance is, is the arctic ice melting as predicted or not? The evidence is now conclusive, it’s not.”
It’s not melting EXACTLY as predicted, but there is still a clear, alarming downward trend. The Daily Mail is downplaying that fact and playing up the details of just this year, which is not all that relevant to the big picture. Global warming is real, and the arctic melting proves it.
Well, if I must. You being oblivious, and all.
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/vast-methane-plumes-spotted-bubbling-up-from-the-arctic-ocean-floor/33078/
Now, mind you, the arctic has always spouted methane, but in quantities and under conditions that allowed the methane to dissipate in the ocean.
No longer. As a planet warmer, methane is much more effective than CO2 … and we is in yet more trouble.
But don’t you pull your heads out of those butt-holes. I wouldn’t want to you strain yerselves.
Peggy thinks the fact that it is cold in some places disproves global warming. As the kids say, totes adorbs.
Tina, I’m curious: out of the 97% of climate scientists who agree that the earth is warming due at least in part to human activity, what percentage do you believe are evil money-grubbing fraudsters, and what percentage do you believe just aren’t as knowledgeable about the climate as you are? A breakdown would with numbers would be nice.
“Alarmists are narcissists who believe humans have the power to greatly impact earths natural balancing features…we can compete with volcanic activity, the oceans tides, the suns activity, the changing seasons and the balancing, moderating flows in the climate. We can do great damage…such a complete crock!”
By this logic, you should also believe that it is OK to litter and pollute whenever we want–after all, humans can’t really affect the earth, so what’s the problem?
The greenhouse effect is a well-established reality, Tina. So is the fact that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere makes the greenhouse effect more severe:
“Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a colorless gas that is a by-product of the combustion of organic matter. It makes up less than 0.04 percent of Earth’s atmosphere, most of which was put there by volcanic activity very early in the planet’s life. Today, human activities are pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, resulting in an overall increase in carbon dioxide concentrations [Source: Keeling, C.D. and T.P. Whorf]. These increased concentrations are considered the primary factor in global warming, because carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation. Most of the energy that escapes Earth’s atmosphere comes in this form, so extra CO2 means more energy absorption and an overall increase in the planet’s temperature.
The Worldwatch Institute reports that carbon emissions worldwide have increased from about 1 billion tons in 1900 to about 7 billion tons in 1995. The Institute also notes that the average surface temperature of Earth has gone from 14.5 degrees C in 1860 to 15.3 degrees C in 1980.
The IPCC says that the pre-industrial amount of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere was about 280 parts per million (ppm), meaning that for every million molecules of dry air, 280 of them were CO2. In contrast, 2005 levels of CO2 were measured at 379 ppm [Source: IPCC].”
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/global-warming3.htm
Fortunately, your generation will be the last to fail to take this problem seriously. Unfortunately, by the time your generation is replaced in the halls of power, it may be too late.
First of all Chris that 97% figure is bogus:
“By this logic, you should also believe that it is OK to litter and pollute”
Sure Chris just like knowing we still get more energy from coal means I’ll never put a solar panel on my house. Your attitude gets in the way, Chris. it really stinks!
“The greenhouse effect is a well-established reality, Tina.”
BFD, Chris. It doesn’t mean we have to exaggerate the man made portion, politicize it, create all kinds of new taxes and regulations, and put people out of work. It doesn’t mean we should lie to our kids and scare the crap out of them in our schools either. And Cartoons about it sure as hell shouldn’t become a propaganda tool as it has.
“Fortunately, your generation will be the last to fail to take this problem seriously.”
Don;t be silly…my generation is the one perpetrating the hoax. Fortunately they’ve been found out!
“…by the time your generation is replaced in the halls of power, it may be too late.”
There’s that arrogance again. You really do assume that everyone in your generation thinks just like you do…how cute…and how wrong you are. Not only that but the next generation is more conservative.
Liberal Doom and Gloom Depressing Younger Generation
The younger generation turning conservative…
Millennials are conservative, cheap and could be the wisest generation
Our readers might find this page on mans contribution to greenhouse gases helpful: geocraft.com:
Bottom line: “Putting it all together: total human greenhouse gas contributions add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect.
Tina, we’ve argued about the Cook paper before; apparently you don’t remember that you lost.
As I’ve explained before, it is actually the paper you cited rejecting the Cook paper that is bogus. The authors are a who’s-who of oil funded scam artists.
Only one climatologist, David Legates, is listed as an author, and he has indicated that his views are based more on religion than science:
“We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception.”
This is absurdly unprofessional. Obviously, belief in God does not automatically invalidate a scientists’ conclusions, but here Legates is explicitly invoking “God’s grace” as a reason for why global warming couldn’t possibly be occurring. That’s obviously ridiculous, and shows that Legates is letting his faith blind him to scientific evidence.
http://denierlist.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/dr-david-r-legates/
Another author, Christopher Monckton, has no scientific training, and has made a public ass of himself too many times to count, including one incident where he impersonated a Burmese dignitary in order to crash a climate conference:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/dec/07/doha-climate-talks-ukip-lord-monckton
Willie Soon has received over $1 million in funding from the oil industry:
http://www.desmogblog.com/willie-soon
And William Briggs works for the Heartland Institute, which paid fake “experts” to lie in favor of the tobacco industry in the 90s.
http://heartland.org/william-briggs
Heartland is known for extremely thuggish tactics, such as a billboard campaign in which they equated all scientists and laymen who accept the theory of AGW with Hitler, Stalin, and the Unabomber.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0507/Heartland-Institute-s-digital-billboards-make-bombastic-comparisons-video
But this only shows why these authors are not to be trusted; it doesn’t prove their conclusions wrong. Here’s what does.
The Legates paper uses different (and inferior) methodology to falsely claim that the real consensus is 0.3% instead of 97%. Here’s why their methodology doesn’t make any sense:
One critique of the consensus has been published in a paper in the journal Science & Education. The argument made in the paper was first published by Christopher Monckton on a climate contrarian blog. Monckton has also suggested the conspiracy theory that the journal Environmental Research Letters was created (in 2006) specifically for the purpose of publishing Cook et al. (2013).
The Monckton paper takes the point about quantification above to the extreme. It focuses exclusively on the papers that quantified human-caused global warming, and takes these as a percentage of all 12,000 abstracts captured in the literature search, thus claiming the consensus is not 97%, but rather 0.3%. The logical flaws in this argument should be obvious, and thus should not have passed through the peer-review process.
Approximately two-thirds of abstracts did not take a position on the causes of global warming, for various reasons (e.g. the causes were simply not relevant to or a key component of their specific research paper). Thus in order to estimate the consensus on human-caused global warming, it’s necessary to focus on the abstracts that actually stated a position on human-caused global warming.
When addressing the consensus regarding humans being responsible for the majority of recent global warming, the same argument holds true for abstracts that do not quantify the human contribution. We simply can’t know their position on the issue – that doesn’t mean they endorse or reject the consensus position; they simply don’t provide that information, and thus must first be removed before estimating the quantified consensus.
As noted above, when we perform this calculation, the consensus position that humans are the main cause of global warming is endorsed in 87% of abstracts and 96% of full papers. Monckton’s argument is very similar to the myth that CO2 can’t cause significant global warming because it only comprises 0.04% of the atmosphere. 99% of the atmosphere is comprised of non-greenhouse gases, but these other gases are irrelevant to the question of the CO2 greenhouse effect. The percentage of CO2 as a fraction of all gases in the atmosphere is an irrelevant figure, as is the percentage of abstracts quantifying human-caused global warming as a percentage of all abstracts captured in our literature search.
It’s also worth noting that based on Monckton’s logic, only 0.08% of abstracts reject human-caused global warming.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm
Cook et al’s methodology is sound. Legates et al’s methodology is not.
Furthermore, as the Skeptical Science link also shows, numerous other studies back up the 97% number found by Cook et al. This consensus is also represented by every single national scientific body in the world. It is overwhelmingly clear that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that AGW is happening, and that the deniers are a small yet vocal minority. The notion that all scientists who agree with the consensus are either liars or just less informed on climate issues than you are doesn’t stand up to scrutiny–especially when considering the fact that scientists can and do make just as much money–if not more–for shilling for the lucrative oil industry.
You all but admit that your stance on this issue is not based on an understanding of the science, but on a fear-based anti-tax platform. You don’t want to acknowledge that AGW is a problem because you don’t like the solutions posed to deal with that problem. That is a profoundly vapid and anti-intellectual stance. Your feelings about taxes and big government have nothing to do with whether AGW is happening or not. They do have a lot to do with why denialists have been so successful at manipulating conservatives.
Your position that students should not be taught the facts about AGW is also meritless. Students have a right to learn accurate, up-to-date scientific information. The fact is that there is very little controversy about global warming in the field of science. The controversy exists almost entirely in the political sphere, which is why nearly all the deniers seem to work for political outfits.
Your argument that students should not be taught AGW is no different than religious activists claiming that students learning about evolution is akin to “propaganda.” It’s no surprise that there is a lot of overlap between evolution denial and climate denial.
Your links about millenials’ views do not even address climate change. A majority of millenials agree with the scientific consensus.
http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/millennials-environment-climate-change
Chris: “…apparently you don’t remember that you lost.”
Arrogance doesn’t pass for a win Chris…it does indicate immaturity.
“The authors are a who’s-who of oil”
As if being involved in oil or in support of oil has anything to do with it!
The so-called scientists that have perpetrated scams are associated with green energy and carbon credit schemes and using the power and force of government to wage war on the people…I’ll take the oil guys any day of the week.
“That’s obviously ridiculous, and shows that Legates is letting his faith blind him…”
Huge assumption on your part…HUGE!
“Another author, Christopher Monckton, has no scientific training, and has made a public ass of himself too many times to count…”
Once again arrogance rules your world. The only people claiming Monckton has made an ass of himself are the asses that have perpetrated the scam and now have to scramble to try to cover their own exposed selves! And of course the unquestioning asses that help keep the myth alive with sycophantic devotion and loyalty to the lying cheats…like you.
“You all but admit that your stance on this issue…blah blah blah blah”
Ask me if I care what you think.
“Your argument that students should not be taught AGW”
I didn’t say that Chris. This is so typical of you. You put your thoughts into my mouth and then argue as if it was with me. The zealotry and shriek factor in your comment is enough to convince me that you haven’t given this any real thought at all. The fact that you would bury people, particularly the poor, under a mountain of costly green energy alternatives to heat their homes in winter, when a clean cheaper source is already available, for a theory based on tricks, manipulation, and scams is just horrid. You don’t know the science; you know the science trash…the science fiction and you don;t care what the politics of it does to people.
The majority of millennials have yet to reach forty at which age enlightenment begins to take hold…thank God! I trust that those showing common sense now will easily make the transition.
Our readers might enjoy a great read related to AGW asses is linked over at WUWT…full article in The Register…a tease:
Tina, I notice you did not address the methodology failures of Legates et al., or how the Cook methodology was actually valid. I have no choice but to ask: is this because you didn’t understand the explanation about their competing methodologies?
You relied on nothing but ad hom attacks in your above comment. I did attack the credibility of your sources, but I ALSO explained why their premises and conclusions were wrong. You seem unable to do this, or to have any kind of intelligent conversation about what makes a study valid or not. And yet at the same time you seem to believe you are capable of evaluating which studies are right and which are wrong. How can that be? It doesn’t make any sense.
Your entire basis for evaluating whether a study is accurate or not seems to be whether it conforms to your preconceived notions. That’s not intellectually honest.
Tina: “As if being involved in oil or in support of oil has anything to do with it!”
You believe that being involved with green energy projects have everything to do with it when you attack the majority of climate scientists, but when deniers’ links to oil companies–which are FAR more profitable–come up, it has nothing to do with it? You are a walking double standard.
“The so-called scientists that have perpetrated scams are associated with green energy and carbon credit schemes and using the power and force of government to wage war on the people…”
Really? All 97% of them?
“Huge assumption on your part…HUGE!”
No, it is not an assumption at all. Legates said that he does not believe that global warming could possibly be happening because God’s grace would not allow it. Come on, Tina–if you have any sense of honesty or proportion left, even you have to admit this is a totally unscientific, uncritical and unprofessional argument to make.
“Once again arrogance rules your world. The only people claiming Monckton has made an ass of himself are the asses that have perpetrated the scam and now have to scramble to try to cover their own exposed selves!”
Really, Tina? So you see nothing wrong with Monckton impersonating a foreign delegate? You call legitimate climate scientists “lying cheats” with no real basis, but an actual proven liar like Monckton registers no outrage from you? That is ridiculous.
“Ask me if I care what you think.”
You don’t have to care what I think, but you should care why you think the way you do. Again, you keep emphasizing taxation and big government in this argument, as if those are the deciding factors in whether or not we should accept scientific evidence. When I try and turn the discussion to actual scientific evidence, and the difference between valid and invalid methodology, you have nothing to say. This proves that your position is entirely political, and not based on science.
I’ve said almost nothing about what policies the government should enact to combat global warming, except that I support cap and trade, which was introduced by Ronald Reagan and supported by Bush Sr. That’s all I have said. I haven’t said anything about forcing poor people to use solar power and give up gas–that is a COMPLETE strawman that you made up in your head. I have no desire to make this issue political or serve as a punching bag you can use as revenge for all your imagined slights. I care about the science. You don’t.
“I didn’t say that Chris.”
Yes, you did:
“It doesn’t mean we should lie to our kids and scare the crap out of them in our schools either.”
You obviously believe that anthropogenic global warming is a “lie,” so the only possible meaning of this statement is that you don’t believe we should teach AGW in schools.
Please do not falsely accuse me of putting words in your mouth. Stop trying to dodge the clear meanings of your own arguments. You spend so much time denying what’s in black and white, it would serve you much better if you simply thought out your arguments more fully before writing them down and hitting submit. If you have to deny exactly what you’ve said, then what you’ve said wasn’t worth saying in the first place.
“The majority of millennials have yet to reach forty at which age enlightenment begins to take hold…thank God!”
But you just said that millenials already agree with you. You can’t even keep your own arguments straight; how do you expect to understand anyone else’s?
Interesting article in the NYT about foreign dnations to think tanks. You have to read deep into the article, past a section highlighting republicans and a trade agreement with Japan before you come to the section on money donated by Norway to the Center for Global Development and the expectations Norway has:
Reading that I was reminded of the unusual swat team harassment and raid on Gibson Guitars during which exotic woods were seized and never returned. These woods come from Indonesian countries. Was this raid a demonstration for the benefit of the think tanks relationship with its foreign financier, Norway? We’ll never know but it is disturbing in theory.
Chris: “…oil companies–which are FAR more profitable…”
Two things: 1. That would be honest profit from a product that people willingly purchase and use to make and transport everything we use. 2. None of it sold on the farce that if we don’t use oil we’re all gonna die!
“You are a walking double standard.”
Not true. I acknowledge they both have an interest in the argument. I question the truthfulness behind people that have been shown to be out-and- out liars and manipulative grant money grubbers, not to mention involved in worldwide socialist schemes with the UN to control, manage, regulate, and tax.
“…you have to admit this is a totally unscientific, uncritical and unprofessional argument to make.”
I would consider it more as an aside. You on the other hand jump on it as if it was all he had to say. I think you would be surprised by the number of scientists who also have a religious perspective. The incredible design and balance in nature is a wonder that I think even you would admit is obvious.
“So you see nothing wrong with Monckton impersonating a foreign delegate?…”
We’ve had this discussion before. The left has used Saul Alinsky #12 on this man because he poses a threat and he’s very visible. They are full of doo doo!
“you should care why you think the way you do. ”
You really do not get how arrogant you are, do you?.
“…you keep emphasizing taxation and big government in this argument, as if those are the deciding factors in whether or not we should accept scientific evidence.”
No, Chris. I have been reading about and watching the science unfold for over forty years. The so-called experts have changed their minds, and the goal posts, and the kinds of catastrophes that are imminent for all of those years. Nothing bad has happened. I have also been willing to read and notice the opinions of experts who suddenly have said, “Wait just a darn minute!”, and have offered scientific evidence to show the alarmists and extremists are really just opportunists playing a big geopolitical game. I don’t buy it. THAT is the reason the taxes and regulation become an important part of the issue…because we should not be taxed, forced to buy or not buy products, and regulated because of a HOAX!
If you are going to reiterate what I have said please at least get it first!
“This proves that your position is entirely political, and not based on science.”
No! My political position arises out of the now exposed politicization of phony bologna science and the fact that we are all being had!
I respect serious science and the people who are dedicated to real scientific inquiry. I abhor science whores who pimp out their work and who don sexed-up findings that they then publish to “prove” the consensus view…that is not science!
“When I try and turn the discussion…”
Now we’re getting somewhere. Why do you do that? Why do you insist we “turn the discussion”? If you feel a burning need to direct the discussion then write something and we’ll post it…or get your own blog.
And no, I did not say kids should not be taught AGW. I said they should not be taught propaganda: “It doesn’t mean we should lie to our kids and scare the crap out of them in our schools either.”
Don”t tell me kids haven’t been presented this information as FACT…you know they have been taught it is a fact that we’re destroying the planet, that western culture is bad, that we are killing the earth, that human beings are causing the earth to heat up by driving too much and using “dirty oil”…and all sorts of garbage. THAT’S NOT SCIENCE; IT ISN’T EVEN HONEST!
“…so the only possible meaning of this statement is that you don’t believe we should teach AGW in schools.”
Oh really? I guess the words, “Some scientists believe…” don’t work for you as a teacher, huh? You know damn well there is a way to present material without taking a position so that all opinions are explored.
This is exactly why people are taking their kids out of our schools. Teachers that indoctrinate instead of teaching…sadly many of them probably don’t even know they are doing it since they went to indoctrination school themselves!
“…it would serve you much better if you simply thought out your arguments more fully before writing them down ”
It would help all of us a great deal if you had the capacity to actually get what someone else is saying, sadly that doesn’t seem to be the case. None of us signed up to attend Chris school either.
You do have a sizable capacity for holding arrogant, dismissive opinions which is extremely off-putting.
“But you just said that millenials already agree with you. You can’t even keep your own arguments straight; how do you expect to understand anyone else’s?”
You cannot be this stupid. Millenials are human beings not figures in a study. The trend is toward conservatism. They might still believe the crap that they’ve been spoon fed in school and cartoons about global warming but maturity will change that for many of them.
My final retort is X-rated and therefore unsuitable for publication…use your imagination.
Tina, before I comment any further, please address my point about the competing methodologies of Legates et al. and Cook et al.
You claimed that the Legates paper disproves Cook’s paper, but until you can demonstrate that Legates’ paper has superior methodology, you have not backed up this claim. You have simply asserted it.
I explained earlier how the methodology in the Legates paper doesn’t make sense, and why the Cook paper’s methodology is superior. Did you understand the explanation from Skeptical Science? If not, what points are you unclear on?
Chris I’d consider it a blessing if you didn’t comment further. Do whatever you like.
Lord Monckton’s latest article, meanwhile, includes the following:
We’re dipping into the 50’s tonight with a full harvest moon…enjoy people, we’re heading into Fall!
Tina, I am sorry you find my valid questions annoying. I have tried to discuss the actual science behind studies with you, but whenever the subject of methodology comes up your eyes glaze over. You simply don’t know how to have those conversations. If a study confirms your beliefs, you think it’s accurate; since you don’t understand methodology, and have no desire to, you can’t have any other way of evaluating a study’s reliability. So your claim that the Legates study debunks the Cook study remains unfounded.
You also didn’t answer my earlier question about whether you found anything wrong with Monckton impersonating a Burmese delegate. Apparently you do not, since you continue citing such a dishonest person. Even worse, you accuse people who do have a problem with such dishonesty of “Saul Alinsky” tactics. I can’t believe you can’t see how silly that is.
No wonder you don’t want me to comment here any further.
As I recall someone else on this blog who does understand methodology took you apart on your arguments before and you went away.
I don’t respond to you when you are in this for two reasons:
1. I am not trained in the sciences and do not have the background to argue the science, as I have said before, and,
2. Your purpose is not to create understanding, IMO, but to hammer and gloat. Hammer away. Gloat away. Your inflated ego is your reward.
“You also didn’t answer my earlier question about whether you found anything wrong with Monckton impersonating a Burmese delegate.”
Why would I? You bring this information out of left field with no explanation for our readers or me. And waging a pi$$ing contest regarding the legitimacy of work or the pretensions of those involved in passing off theory as fact would yield too much fruit that’s already been discussed on Post Scripts. The disgraced persons on the AGW side are well documented and look quite foolish wthout my help.
Our readers might enjoy reading about the Bardarbunga Volcano that erupted recently.
The environmental impact will be quite severe, including ice melt, and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it.
Imagine that!
Tina: “I am not trained in the sciences and do not have the background to argue the science…”
And yet, not only do you CONTINUE to argue the science, you insist you are right about the science, and 97% of climate scientists are wrong.
And you call me arrogant?
Yes. Not only do you mischaracterize what I say you do it to create a stage for your own supposed superiority.
You also believe the tripe that these totally unethical, politicized, so-called scientists say. They have become an embarrassment to the community and you champion them…so YES!
I have not mischaracterized anything you have said.
You continue to mischaracterize the work and reputation of the vast majority of climate scientists, even though you admit that you have no basis for the claims you have made.
You continue to think that the global warming zealots ARE the vast majority of scientists. They are a small group with very large egos and very little integrity.
You seem to be concerned with lying but this bunch of deceivers is fine by you…pathetic!
Tina: “You continue to think that the global warming zealots ARE the vast majority of scientists.”
Yes, I think that because that’s what the most accurate measures of the consensus shows. I have already explained the methodology of the Cook paper–in a very simple way, so you don’t have to be a scientist to understand it–and shown why its conclusions are reliable, and why the Legates paper you cited does not disprove it. I have also shown that the AGW theory is endorsed by every national scientific body in the world.
You have offered nothing to counter this, so I am not sure why you think your claim that climate scientists who endorse the AGW theory are a “small group” would carry any weight at all.