Climate Change - Science, Ideology or Money

[BDKJMU]

Changing Tides: Research Center Under Fire for 'Adjusted' Sea-Level Data

Is climate change raising sea levels, as Al Gore has argued -- or are climate scientists doctoring the data?

The University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group decided in May to add 0.3 millimeters -- or about the thickness of a fingernail -- every year to its actual measurements of sea levels, sparking criticism from experts who called it an attempt to exaggerate the effects of global warming.

"Gatekeepers of our sea level data are manufacturing a fictitious sea level rise that is not occurring," said James M. Taylor, a lawyer who focuses on environmental issues for the Heartland Institute.

Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements because land masses, still rebounding from the ice age, are rising and increasing the amount of water that oceans can hold.

"We have to account for the fact that the ocean basins are actually getting slightly bigger... water volume is expanding," he said, a phenomenon they call glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA).

Taylor calls it tomfoolery.

"There really is no reason to do this other than to advance a political agenda," he said.

Climate scientist John Christy, a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, said that the amount of water in the ocean and sea level were two different things.

"To me… sea level rise is what's measured against the actual coast," he told FoxNews.com. "That's what tells us the impact of rising oceans."

Taylor agreed.

"Many global warming alarmists say that vast stretches of coastline are going to be swallowed up by the sea. Well, that means we should be talking about sea level, not about global water volume."

In e-mails with FoxNews.com, Nerem indicated that he considered "sea level rise" to be the same thing as the amount of water in the ocean.

"If we correct our data to remove [the effect of rising land], it actually does cause the rate of sea level (a.k.a. ocean water volume change) rise to be bigger," Nerem wrote. The adjustment is trivial, and not worth public attention, he added.

"For the layperson, this correction is a non-issue and certainly not newsworthy… [The] effect is tiny -- only 1 inch over 100 years, whereas we expect sea level to rise 2-4 feet."

But Taylor said that the correction seemed bigger when compared with actual sea level increases.

"We’ve seen only 7 inches of sea level rise in the past century and it hasn’t sped up this century. Compared to that, this would add nearly 20 percent to the sea level rise. That's not insignificant," he told FoxNews.com.

Nerem said that the research center is considering compromising on the adjustment.

"We are considering putting both data sets on our website -- a GIA-corrected dataset, as well as one without the GIA correction," he said.

Christy said that would be a welcome change.

"I would encourage CU to put the sea level rate [with] no adjustment at the top of the website," he said.

Taylor’s takeaway: Be wary of sea level rise estimates.

"When Al Gore talks about Manhattan flooding this century, and 20 feet of sea level rise, that’s simply not going to happen. If it were going to happen, he wouldn’t have bought his multi-million dollar mansion along the coast in California."
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/ ... evel-data/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BDKJMU]

The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows
Meltwater from Asia's peaks is much less than previously estimated, but lead scientist says the loss of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a serious concern

The world's greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.

The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.

The study is the first to survey all the world's icecaps and glaciers and was made possible by the use of satellite data. Overall, the contribution of melting ice outside the two largest caps – Greenland and Antarctica – is much less than previously estimated, with the lack of ice loss in the Himalayas and the other high peaks of Asia responsible for most of the discrepancy.

Bristol University glaciologist Prof Jonathan Bamber, who was not part of the research team, said: "The very unexpected result was the negligible mass loss from high mountain Asia, which is not significantly different from zero."

The melting of Himalayan glaciers caused controversy in 2009 when a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change mistakenly stated that they would disappear by 2035, instead of 2350. However, the scientist who led the new work is clear that while greater uncertainty has been discovered in Asia's highest mountains, the melting of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a serious concern.

"Our results and those of everyone else show we are losing a huge amount of water into the oceans every year," said Prof John Wahr of the University of Colorado. "People should be just as worried about the melting of the world's ice as they were before."

His team's study, published in the journal Nature, concludes that between 443-629bn tonnes of meltwater overall are added to the world's oceans each year. This is raising sea level by about 1.5mm a year, the team reports, in addition to the 2mm a year caused by expansion of the warming ocean.

The scientists are careful to point out that lower-altitude glaciers in the Asian mountain ranges – sometimes dubbed the "third pole" – are definitely melting. Satellite images and reports confirm this. But over the study period from 2003-10 enough ice was added to the peaks to compensate.

The impact on predictions for future sea level rise is yet to be fully studied but Bamber said: "The projections for sea level rise by 2100 will not change by much, say 5cm or so, so we are talking about a very small modification." Existing estimates range from 30cm to 1m.

Wahr warned that while crucial to a better understanding of ice melting, the eight years of data is a relatively short time period and that variable monsoons mean year-to-year changes in ice mass of hundreds of billions of tonnes. "It is awfully dangerous to take an eight-year record and predict even the next eight years, let alone the next century," he said.

The reason for the radical reappraisal of ice melting in Asia is the different ways in which the current and previous studies were conducted. Until now, estimates of meltwater loss for all the world's 200,000 glaciers were based on extrapolations of data from a few hundred monitored on the ground. Those glaciers at lower altitudes are much easier for scientists to get to and so were more frequently included, but they were also more prone to melting.

The bias was particularly strong in Asia, said Wahr: "There extrapolation is really tough as only a handful of lower-altitude glaciers are monitored and there are thousands there very high up."

The new study used a pair of satellites, called Grace, which measure tiny changes in the Earth's gravitational pull. When ice is lost, the gravitational pull weakens and is detected by the orbiting spacecraft. "They fly at 500km, so they see everything," said Wahr, including the hard-to-reach, high-altitude glaciers.

"I believe this data is the most reliable estimate of global glacier mass balance that has been produced to date," said Bamber. He noted that 1.4 billion people depend on the rivers that flow from the Himalayas and Tibetan plateau: "That is a compelling reason to try to understand what is happening there better."

He added: "The new data does not mean that concerns about climate change are overblown in any way. It means there is a much larger uncertainty in high mountain Asia than we thought. Taken globally all the observations of the Earth's ice – permafrost, Arctic sea ice, snow cover and glaciers – are going in the same direction."

Grace launched in 2002 and continues to monitor the planet, but it has passed its expected mission span and its batteries are beginning to weaken. A replacement mission has been approved by the US and German space agencies and could launch in 2016.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... intcmp=122" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[HI54UNI]

You have to be a pretty ignorant person to not believe in climate change. If Dick Chaney was the first advocate of CC, 99.9% or pubs would be dick riding.

I don't think most people are denying climate change. It is the man made part that people question.

[HI54UNI]

Consensus was the earth was flat.
Consensus was the universe revolved around earth.


And nice chart. Obscene oil profits? Why is private funding of research bad but government funding not even mentioned? How many millions have govt spent on funding research into global warming? Do those scientists want to protect their fat govt paychecks?

As for the second comment: I have none, just a quick meme.

As for the first comment: Consensus was based off ignorance, there was no science that proved the earth was flat or that the universe revolved around the earth. Today, our scope of science is much more precise, accurate, etc. We have great reason to believe these things, and there's a reason specialists have consensus. Saying because we had consensus on a verifiable false fact 1000 years ago does not refute consensus of the day, because we are smarter. I'd trust that the scientific community would adapt their views on such things if data falsifying claims arose. That's how science works.

So are our scientists that much smarter today to know that they can't be wrong now? The earth is 4-5 billion years old. We have weather records back a few hundred years, which is a mere snapshot in time compared to the earth's age. Does the data from that little snapshot prove everything?

[D1B]

You have to be a pretty ignorant person to not believe in climate change. If Dick Chaney was the first advocate of CC, 99.9% or pubs would be dick riding.

I don't think most people are denying climate change. It is the man made part that people question.

Billions of people becoming consumers. Massive burning of fossil fuels. Rapid deforestation. Rapid overpopulation.

Really, Fiver? You don't think we're having an impact?



Amazon rainforest deforestation

[Baldy]

As for the second comment: I have none, just a quick meme.

As for the first comment: Consensus was based off ignorance, there was no science that proved the earth was flat or that the universe revolved around the earth. Today, our scope of science is much more precise, accurate, etc. We have great reason to believe these things, and there's a reason specialists have consensus. Saying because we had consensus on a verifiable false fact 1000 years ago does not refute consensus of the day, because we are smarter. I'd trust that the scientific community would adapt their views on such things if data falsifying claims arose. That's how science works.

So are our scientists that much smarter today to know that they can't be wrong now? The earth is 4-5 billion years old. We have weather records back a few hundred years, which is a mere snapshot in time compared to the earth's age. Does the data from that little snapshot prove everything?

That's the problem, they can't prove ANYTHING.
All they have is flawed mathematical formulas and computer models, and we all know how unreliable computer models are in practical science.

[D1B]

So are our scientists that much smarter today to know that they can't be wrong now? The earth is 4-5 billion years old. We have weather records back a few hundred years, which is a mere snapshot in time compared to the earth's age. Does the data from that little snapshot prove everything?

That's the problem, they can't prove ANYTHING.
All they have is flawed mathematical formulas and computer models, and we all know how unreliable computer models are in practical science.

Baldy, you don't know shit, except how to make money. People like you refuse to believe anything that threatens your bank account.

The vast majority of the world's leading scientists support anthropogenic climate change.

[andy7171]

[youtube][/youtube]

[andy7171]

-
What we need is a hollywood star to let us know what's going on

I remember when Ted Danson told us in the 80's that the seas will be dead in 10 years

Say what you will about climate change but there is no disputing the effects man is having on the oceans.

That's not the ocean, that's the Anacostia.

[youngterrier]

As for the second comment: I have none, just a quick meme.

As for the first comment: Consensus was based off ignorance, there was no science that proved the earth was flat or that the universe revolved around the earth. Today, our scope of science is much more precise, accurate, etc. We have great reason to believe these things, and there's a reason specialists have consensus. Saying because we had consensus on a verifiable false fact 1000 years ago does not refute consensus of the day, because we are smarter. I'd trust that the scientific community would adapt their views on such things if data falsifying claims arose. That's how science works.

So are our scientists that much smarter today to know that they can't be wrong now? The earth is 4-5 billion years old. We have weather records back a few hundred years, which is a mere snapshot in time compared to the earth's age. Does the data from that little snapshot prove everything?

Um no. Climate change probably has some natural causes. No scientist denies that. The acceleration of climate change is another issue all together, and that is the problem scientists attempt to address. If we're going to bank our information on the concept that we don't know anything for sure, there's no point in doing science. We have great reason to think that humans are accelerating global warming simply based on the chemistry of the interaction of the atmosphere and burning of fossil fuels. I can't stress how dumb it is to say that polluting the air has no effect on the climate outside of natural causes.

[SeattleGriz]

That's the problem, they can't prove ANYTHING.
All they have is flawed mathematical formulas and computer models, and we all know how unreliable computer models are in practical science.

Baldy, you don't know shit, except how to make money. People like you refuse to believe anything that threatens your bank account.

The vast majority of the world's leading scientists support anthropogenic climate change.

And they should. They not only receive grant money which allows them to publish papers, but also employ students, fellow peers and gain notoriety . In addition, they most likely feel they are saving Mother Earth. Pure catnip to them.

[SeattleGriz]

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... again.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .
Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.
The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.
‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’
Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.
‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z1paJ6U8AW" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[youngterrier]

The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows
Meltwater from Asia's peaks is much less than previously estimated, but lead scientist says the loss of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a serious concern

The world's greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.

The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.

The study is the first to survey all the world's icecaps and glaciers and was made possible by the use of satellite data. Overall, the contribution of melting ice outside the two largest caps – Greenland and Antarctica – is much less than previously estimated, with the lack of ice loss in the Himalayas and the other high peaks of Asia responsible for most of the discrepancy.

Bristol University glaciologist Prof Jonathan Bamber, who was not part of the research team, said: "The very unexpected result was the negligible mass loss from high mountain Asia, which is not significantly different from zero."

The melting of Himalayan glaciers caused controversy in 2009 when a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change mistakenly stated that they would disappear by 2035, instead of 2350. However, the scientist who led the new work is clear that while greater uncertainty has been discovered in Asia's highest mountains, the melting of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a serious concern.

"Our results and those of everyone else show we are losing a huge amount of water into the oceans every year," said Prof John Wahr of the University of Colorado. "People should be just as worried about the melting of the world's ice as they were before."

His team's study, published in the journal Nature, concludes that between 443-629bn tonnes of meltwater overall are added to the world's oceans each year. This is raising sea level by about 1.5mm a year, the team reports, in addition to the 2mm a year caused by expansion of the warming ocean.

The scientists are careful to point out that lower-altitude glaciers in the Asian mountain ranges – sometimes dubbed the "third pole" – are definitely melting. Satellite images and reports confirm this. But over the study period from 2003-10 enough ice was added to the peaks to compensate.

The impact on predictions for future sea level rise is yet to be fully studied but Bamber said: "The projections for sea level rise by 2100 will not change by much, say 5cm or so, so we are talking about a very small modification." Existing estimates range from 30cm to 1m.

Wahr warned that while crucial to a better understanding of ice melting, the eight years of data is a relatively short time period and that variable monsoons mean year-to-year changes in ice mass of hundreds of billions of tonnes. "It is awfully dangerous to take an eight-year record and predict even the next eight years, let alone the next century," he said.

The reason for the radical reappraisal of ice melting in Asia is the different ways in which the current and previous studies were conducted. Until now, estimates of meltwater loss for all the world's 200,000 glaciers were based on extrapolations of data from a few hundred monitored on the ground. Those glaciers at lower altitudes are much easier for scientists to get to and so were more frequently included, but they were also more prone to melting.

The bias was particularly strong in Asia, said Wahr: "There extrapolation is really tough as only a handful of lower-altitude glaciers are monitored and there are thousands there very high up."

The new study used a pair of satellites, called Grace, which measure tiny changes in the Earth's gravitational pull. When ice is lost, the gravitational pull weakens and is detected by the orbiting spacecraft. "They fly at 500km, so they see everything," said Wahr, including the hard-to-reach, high-altitude glaciers.

"I believe this data is the most reliable estimate of global glacier mass balance that has been produced to date," said Bamber. He noted that 1.4 billion people depend on the rivers that flow from the Himalayas and Tibetan plateau: "That is a compelling reason to try to understand what is happening there better."

He added: "The new data does not mean that concerns about climate change are overblown in any way. It means there is a much larger uncertainty in high mountain Asia than we thought. Taken globally all the observations of the Earth's ice – permafrost, Arctic sea ice, snow cover and glaciers – are going in the same direction."

Grace launched in 2002 and continues to monitor the planet, but it has passed its expected mission span and its batteries are beginning to weaken. A replacement mission has been approved by the US and German space agencies and could launch in 2016.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... intcmp=122" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[youtube][/youtube]

[BDKJMU]

So are our scientists that much smarter today to know that they can't be wrong now? The earth is 4-5 billion years old. We have weather records back a few hundred years, which is a mere snapshot in time compared to the earth's age. Does the data from that little snapshot prove everything?

Um no. Climate change probably has some natural causes. No scientist denies that. The acceleration of climate change is another issue all together, and that is the problem scientists attempt to address. If we're going to bank our information on the concept that we don't know anything for sure, there's no point in doing science. We have great reason to think that humans are accelerating global warming simply based on the chemistry of the interaction of the atmosphere and burning of fossil fuels. I can't stress how dumb it is to say that polluting the air has no effect on the climate outside of natural causes.

I can't stress how dumb it is to say that man can have a major impact on the world's climate.

[youngterrier]

Um no. Climate change probably has some natural causes. No scientist denies that. The acceleration of climate change is another issue all together, and that is the problem scientists attempt to address. If we're going to bank our information on the concept that we don't know anything for sure, there's no point in doing science. We have great reason to think that humans are accelerating global warming simply based on the chemistry of the interaction of the atmosphere and burning of fossil fuels. I can't stress how dumb it is to say that polluting the air has no effect on the climate outside of natural causes.

I can't stress how dumb it is to say that man can have a major impact on the world's climate.

And that's why everyone thinks you're a dumbass

[BDKJMU]

I can't stress how dumb it is to say that man can have a major impact on the world's climate.

And that's why everyone thinks you're a dumbass

Coming from a dumbass like you that is pretty funny.

[youngterrier]

And that's why everyone thinks you're a dumbass

Coming from a dumbass like you that is pretty funny.

great comeback. Now, do you have any science to say that we don't make an impact on our environment? or how burning Carbon emissions doesn't increase the CO2 levels in the atmosphere? No? Read a scientific journal, not the media, you'll learn things.

[SeattleGriz]

Coming from a dumbass like you that is pretty funny.

great comeback. Now, do you have any science to say that we don't make an impact on our environment? or how burning Carbon emissions doesn't increase the CO2 levels in the atmosphere? No? Read a scientific journal, not the media, you'll learn things.

Are you familiar with this paper YT?

Interesting read, for the author questions the CO2 values because of the usage of bogus ice core data and 90,000 direct measurements of CO2 being thrown out. The reason, to make pre-industrial CO2 levels look much lower than they were.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BDKJMU]

[BDKJMU]

"Another Ice Age?

In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have....."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 14,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Whole article:
http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2009/12/ ... r-ice-age/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BDKJMU]

Newsweek: The Coming Ice Age

The Cooling World
By Peter Gwynne
28 April 1975

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production — with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas — parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia — where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually.

During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree — a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.

“A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras — and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average.

Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 — years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases — all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.”

Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects.

They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/news ... ng-ice-age" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kalm]

great comeback. Now, do you have any science to say that we don't make an impact on our environment? or how burning Carbon emissions doesn't increase the CO2 levels in the atmosphere? No? Read a scientific journal, not the media, you'll learn things.

Are you familiar with this paper YT?

Interesting read, for the author questions the CO2 values because of the usage of bogus ice core data and 90,000 direct measurements of CO2 being thrown out. The reason, to make pre-industrial CO2 levels look much lower than they were.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I stopped reading these after about the 10th straight one where connecting the dots between big energy and the author was a couple of clicks away. Has it changed any?

[youngterrier]

great comeback. Now, do you have any science to say that we don't make an impact on our environment? or how burning Carbon emissions doesn't increase the CO2 levels in the atmosphere? No? Read a scientific journal, not the media, you'll learn things.

Are you familiar with this paper YT?

Interesting read, for the author questions the CO2 values because of the usage of bogus ice core data and 90,000 direct measurements of CO2 being thrown out. The reason, to make pre-industrial CO2 levels look much lower than they were.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.springerlink.com/content/y23 ... 867/about/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[youngterrier]

I suggest BDKJMU watch this....so you stop looking like a dumbass

[youtube][/youtube]

If you get your information about global warming from a media outlet but not from a scientific journals.....you are brainwashed

[travelinman67]

I understand this, but when you think about the science of
A) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
B) We burn and release CO2 into the atmosphere
C) it doesn't disappear
D) CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere
E) More heat is trapped in the atmosphere as a result
F) insert repercussions

You're right, it can't be tested on a global scale, but I find the case that polluting the air with carbon emissions having a neutral effect on the process of global warming and subsequent climate change as a naive, uncompelling, and irrational argument.

This isn't cubits, YT.

The natural systems have proven negative feedback response, something the IPCC's "research" has largely ignored. The NASA AQUA research satellite data sets from 2000-2004 ( http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/new ... idity.html ), 2000-2007 ( http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-ar ... -evidence/ ), and most recently 2000-2011 ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... -alarmism/ ). Furthermore, several large-scale natural releases of CO2 (Mt. Pinatubo, being one of the largest) have resulted in a watershed of negative feedback climate research. One of the most prominent, "Climate forcing by the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo." David H. Douglass and Robert S. Knox. Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, confirmed rapid natural negative response to mitigate high atmospheric CO2 levels:
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/ ... natubo.pdf

4.2. Aerosol Forcing
[23] We determined A to be in the range 16 to 21. The
closeness to the Hansen et al. [2002] value of 21 supports
their calculation of this coefficient.
4.3. Mechanisms
[24] This work raises the question of the origin of a
response time as short as several months. This is just the
characteristic time it takes for atmospheric disturbance to
propagate over the earth. We conclude that the climate event
that begins in the atmosphere remains in the atmosphere and
that there is negligible coupling to the deep ocean. In
addition, we conclude that there is no ‘‘climate left in the
pipeline,’’ as discussed below.
[25] Since our analysis yields a gain less than unity, a
second issue raised is the origin of the required negative
feedback. Negative feedback processes have been proposed
involving cirrus clouds [Lindzen, 2001], and Sassen
[1992] reports that cirrus clouds were produced during the
Mt. Pinatubo event. The Lindzen et al. process involving
clouds yields a negative feedback factor of f = 1.1, which
is well within the error estimate of the feedback found
by us...

...In summary, we have shown that Hansen’s hope that
the dramatic Pinatubo climate event would provide an ‘‘acid
test’’ of climate models has been fulfilled, although with an
unexpected result. The effect of the volcano is to reveal a
short atmospheric response time, of the order of several
months, leaving no volcano effect in the pipeline, and a
negative feedback to its forcing.

There are thousands of eminently qualified scientists who've studied GW and published research that unequivocally discredits the IPCC/Hansen models and theories.

Most scientists who don't financially benefit either directly or indirectly from GW research have challenged the so-called "consensus" AGW theory. You should ask yourself why the pro-GW advocates have resorted to name-calling and "pack-mentality" bullying of anyone who challenges their assertions: That is neither rational nor a scientific method.

There's TREMENDOUS political power and financial control if governments succeed in imposing GW regulations/taxation.

Rather than adorning yourself as another pea-brained ideologue, if you are genuinely interested in learning, I strongly recommend studying about the GW movement, it's background, and the actual verifiable science surrounding the theory.

Julian Huxley is considered the grandfather of eugenics via environmental regulation. I suggest you start there.

Here's a few more links that present SCIENCE, not political propoganda:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php
http://www.sepp.org/
http://climateaudit.org/ (McIntyre and...)
http://www.rossmckitrick.com/ (...McKitrick's websites. They're the two who debunked Hansen's infamous "hockeystick" model.)
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/ (owner has wry sense of humor...some good reading)
http://icecap.us/
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/1 ... rting.html
http://drtimball.com/


...and for some political fodder...

http://climatedepot.com/
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/

...or, you can ignore study and grow up to be like...


...D1B.