An inconvenient truth

Here's more to fuel your hot air http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/

SPAM!


If you are going to SPAM PO at least provide links to your data.

I've asked the mod to combine this redundant thread with the current active CC/GW/AGW thread, let's see if the moderation of PO is as some here claim. \

TIA

The real truth about the Western White House.

I wonder whis is more expensive, and by how many orders of magnitude?

Vacationing at Camp David (Obama, Clinton) or the Western White House (Bush, Reagan).

You want a link?

Here you go.

What a contradiction it is that GW would have a greener home than Al Gore

However, Al Gore is getting thermal heating too (wish I could!) and collecting rain water for irrigation and 'water management', solar panels etc http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007...ore_gets_a.php

Here's some of Bush's green goodness for the rest of us http://www.nrdc.org/BushRecord/

George Bush's new 8,501 square foot North Dallas home needs some 'greening' too http://www.greendaily.com/2009/01/15..._inpage_luxist

The graphics are a few years old, but are an apt contribution to the discussion, I think.

So now all we need are some of Dubya's energy bills, to do an actual apples-to-apples comparison.

Hurry up, we desperately need this information ASAP.

TIA

I like that one with the earth

Keep blowing on Montana and everywhere else http://www.deq.mt.gov/ClimateChange/index.asp

Here are the facts:

Globally, glaciers grew during a period from about 1550 to 1850 and then began retreating. From about 1950 to 1980 a slight global cooling occurred and they grew again. Since 1980, glacier have retreated again.

Attempts at correlation between glacier growth and retreating and any other phenomenon, human or natural, needs to include an explanation of the global cooling between the 50's and the 80's.

http://www.nichols.edu/DEPARTMENTS/G...er_retreat.htm


http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../297/5585/1287

At present the orbital eccentricity is nearly at the minimum of its cycle.

http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geo...1/milankov.htm

Sure....believe what the heck you want to believe. CO2's obviously irrelavent, it's all about anything else nature does...anything!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJeq...e=channel_page
Anything but CO2, how lame! Pathetic.

If you can spare 7.30 mins you might find this interesting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEXtr...e=channel_page

Personally, I find that presenting facts, making my arguments respectfully, and then allowing others to accept the validity on their own or present alternative arguments for discussion is the way to go.

Mocking or insulting others doesn't seem conducive to influencing others to listen. I read all I can on the subject. I don't mind discussions and exchange of positions on the subject, but it appears that I'm being asked to convert or be damned. Well, truthfully it looks as if I've been damned and asked to convert as an afterthought.

There's a lot of that going around, but I'm not going to play that game, thanks just the same.

I went too far and I apologize. I hope you can accept that after my heated comments.

I can and do. Thank you for the consideration, Hands.

I need to search for outdoor sanding sealer at the moment, but when I get a chance I'll respond with my impressions of the video.

And what exactly are we to deduce or conclude from the above?

I can still accept all of the above statements as 100% factually accurate, but it also does not change the fact that most of the recent warming/melting is AGW in origin (p < 0.9).

Classic non sequiter. \

I live north of Toronto and the leaves as far as I can remember for the last 35 years, didn't start to show until 2 to 3 weeks into May.

The last few years, 1 week.

May 3rd. and I see green everywhere.

Hopefully I'll see palm trees as a native species before I croak.

Main diffence between Gore and Bush: Gore can speak English.

Hands Sandon, I've watched the video - I believe it to be a rebuttal of critical analysis of statements made by Al Gore? Anyway, it contained little I haven't read about before. I would be interested in more studies on the physics behind supraglacial lake ice acceleration and mass balance. I agree with the video that there isn't enough information yet to be able to know the full effects of this phenomenon.

One thing to note - Places like Byrd Glacier that experience increased ice flow dynamics aren't doing so from effects of atmospheric or ocean warming. In Greenland, perhaps, but the ice flow rate there has returned to normal, according to Faezeh Nick.

Additionally, I understand that any item published with backing from Exxon is suspect by folks that want the information unadulterated by bias. I'm of the opinion that any information from James Hansen falls in this same category.

To recap my position on higw in case you've searched for my previous posts on the subject, I don't think any additional studies are necessary to encourage serious reductions in pollution, I am against carbon credit schemes like cap and trade carbon dioxide emissions programs and such, and finally...

I don't believe that there is anything - short of an epidemic wiping out 90% of the worlds' population - that can have any effect on the current or future accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere without a new form of energy being developed and used. The use of carbon based fuels will result in carbon dioxide pollutants, and energy usage isn't going to be reduced at the present and future population levels.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7733509.stm
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...d-ecd53cd3d320
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...-inconvenient/

Thanks for your reply first off.

Just briefly as I have only as yet followed your first link. Two billion tons of water is a lot. The first link clearly states an increase from 20 billion tons to 22 billion tons and that that had the effect of greater movement. Therefore, I don't understand why you are sure there are no human induced global warming effects involved? Even though the article states it's not climate related for the natural melt-water to happen as a perfectly normal event, I would be surprised if they believed that the 'increase' was not climate related, as this has been a recognized fact of CC.
"It should be stressed the events seen at Byrd are not of themselves climate-related. The lakes probably flood and drain on a regular basis that has nothing to do with atmospheric or ocean warming."~article

I will get back to you as I follow your links and other questions regarding your reply.

The second link, even I can discern to be a blatant misrepresentation of scientific knowledge. This will explain why the same old arguments, constantly used to mislead the public about fluctuations, notably in ocean temperatures are factually incorrect. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y15UGhhRd6M

Your third link sustains your argument no better than the previous two.

To say it was scant of details and facts would be an understatement. That's not altogether bad though, as facts are used by those who espouse your thinking to confound and misinform with an uninspiring and error ridden monotony. (please don't take any personal offense at that, it's not directed at you personally)

Take this as an example-For another, Gore’s “massive destabilization” mechanism for which the earthquakes were a supposed bellwether (meltwater lubrication of the flow channel) has been shown to be ineffective at producing long-term changes in glacier flow rate (e.g. (Joughin et al., 2008; van de Wal et al., 2008)


You say "I believe it to be a rebuttal of critical analysis of statements made by Al Gore?" regarding the video I posted, which if it does contradict anything of Al Gore's, please explain to me what exactly and why you make no other comments on those two videos. They backup what Al Gore is saying not the contrary. I've seen things dismissed before, but for me that takes the biscuit!

I'm not sure about cap and trade, I simply don't know enough about it to make a reasonable judgement one way or the other. But I do support serious efforts being taken to deal with CC and for all I know it's the right decision.

I hope it doesn't take a pandemic along the lines you are talking to prevent such high CO2 emissions. Things are bad, especially China building so many new coal plants. Nuclear is put forward as are other new 'green technologies'. Even nuclear has a limited supply capability and fossil fuels remain the main building block for our production of energy and goods.

James Hansen is a government scientist who happens to work for NASA.

Dr. Hansen has published extensively in the well respected highly regarded peer reviewed climate science literature.

On the other hand, ExxonMobil is a member of the fossil fuel club, which makes entertaining propaganda in the form of TeeVee commercials. This type of advertisement is quite popular these days. I wonder why?

Inhofe's website is not to be trusted by anyone other than Inhofe.


A global glacier index update

Warm reception to Antarctic warming story

How appropriate he'd say amongst other things-

In a 2006 interview with the Tulsa World newspaper, Inhofe said regarding the environmentalist movement, "It kind of reminds... I could use the Third Reich, the Big Lie... You say something over and over and over and over again, and people will believe it, and that's their [the environmentalists'] strategy... A hot summer has nothing to do with global warming. Let's keep in mind it was just three weeks ago that people were saying, 'Wait a minute; it is unusually cool...." He then said, "Everything on which they [the environmentalists] based their story, in terms of the facts, has been refuted scientifically."\

Climate contrarian Pat Michaels refused to disclose funding in Vermont court case

CLIMATE SKEPTIC REFUSES TO DISCLOSE FUNDING

These guys are as thick as thieves. They're a dime a dozen, literally, that's how much they spend on their own climate science research.

Indeed. I followed some of the links in your links- ( frank-which 3 in a post of yours above aren't working properly- I'll delete this when you correct them) This from The New York Times-

Dr. Michaels told Western business leaders last year that he was running out of money for his analyses of other scientists’ global warming research. So a Colorado utility organized a collection campaign for him last week and has raised at least $150,000 in donations and pledges.

The utility, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, based in Sedalia, Colo., has given Dr. Michaels $100,000 of its own, said Stanley R. Lewandowski Jr., its general manager. Mr. Lewandowski said that one company planned to give $50,000 and that a third planned to contribute to Dr. Michaels next year.

“We cannot allow the discussion to be monopolized by the alarmists,” Mr. Lewandowski wrote in a July 17 letter to 50 other utilities. He also called on other electric cooperatives to undertake a counterattack on “alarmist” scientists and specifically Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” which lays much of the blame for global warming on heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide.
~New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/28/sc...erland&emc=rss

Your other links show an even greater scale of iniquities.

The 1st one in my previous post was bad, it's been corrected. I usually click on them myself, and caught it, not quite in time though. Thanks.

Where you have in bold letters World Climate Report you have 3 wiki links (post# 24) they're the ones I couldn't access. Maybe as there quotes, I don't know but it's ok anyway. I can still wiki them.

More info on Inhofe relating to Bush and Hansen. http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/2...ptic-muzzling/

How will Meltwater Pulse 1A work out?

Dr. James Hansen, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies interviewed....greetings!... http://www.suprememastertv.com/bbs/b...l=&url=link3_0

My first link was included to support that glacial flow is present in areas other than ones identified as ones with possible climate causes.

http://www.climatechange.umaine.edu/...rdglacier.html


My second link is about Hansen and the media circus he attracts. Hansen is too interested in being controversial to be relevant. He's adopted the position he now has as a career, which puts him squarely in the same camp as Exxon - monetarily invested in maintaining his position instead of invested in furthering knowledge on the subject. I don't see how anyone can take him seriously at this point. The link to the interview with his supervisor at NASA illustrates one aspect of the issue, as does this link:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/...skeptics-camp/

I suggest that the information Hansen provides is not unique, so supporting the theory of higw doesn't need to include his rhetoric. Arguments pro or con are more professional without his references.

The third link is only to support the work of Faezeh Nick - investigations concluding with Our results imply that the recent rates of mass loss in Greenlands outlet glaciers are transient and should not be extrapolated into the future. Ice movement isn't understood, it's now being researched and I believe folks using incomplete scientific knowledge as evidence to encourage political policy is disingenuous.

Taskiss, I'm not in anyway trying to sound rude, indeed I encourage and respect your interest in this area. However, even the very basics of your statements show a somewhat limited level of understanding. Please, let me explain why I say that, rather than you thinking its an Ad Hominem attack.

Glacial flow is 100% normal, nobody is arguing that it's anything but. The amount of glacial flow depends on many factors and is difficult to accurately predict as has already been clearly stated. Meltwater pulse 1A, which was when sea levels rose at a rapid pace between 14.2-14.7 thousand years ago by about 25 meters. There is growing scientific evidence that the causes behind that are the same causes involved today in glacial movement and collapse. This area is being studied and making predictions on exactly how and exactly when sea-level rise will be attributed to this is still being researched. But to ignore it is reckless at best, IMHO.

franksargent has IMHO ripped to shreds the credibility of your information supported by Inhofe and others, who have very close ties with big oil/coal etc. Given your choice to believe the likes of Inhofe, I can only presume you will have no problem with anyone saying AGW is good for the environment and anything to the contrary is lefty propaganda, inspired by the Third Reich. Not that I think you would make that comparison, but it's surprises me that you would align yourself so closely with someone who does.

Again your last point is that data cannot be projected into the future because things have 'seemingly', on the most basic of levels, in one study, temporarily settled back to normal is one of the deniers main arguing points as was highlighted in an earlier video I linked to and that has been discussed widely amongst scientists, since science began!

One thing you should be aware of is that the number of scientists that study CC that identify it as a serious crisis, is growing and has been since the science has been gathered. Not at all the other way round. There are people who join the likes of Inhofe but they are not representative of a wider trend, indeed quite the opposite.

Quote taken from wikipedia, World Climate Report, first sentence.

I don't think that another Meltwater Pulse 1A like event is possible at this time or even in this century.

25,000 mm/500 years = 50 mm/year (mind you it's an overall average, I have the relevant papers where at the resolution of the samples, the maxima was ~200mm/year, higher resolution samples may have shown even higher maxima, TBD)

Current sea level rise

First link is a research proposal?

Critique of Hansen on the website of a politician well known for being in the pocket of Bil Oil. Go figure. I'll take Hansen for his word as shown in his body of publications/works in the highly regarded well respected peer reviewed climate science literature.

Roy Spencer

Closing comment is a non sequiter. As the current rate of sea level rise is greater than what GCM's can currently account for (by ~50%). This has already been mentioned by myself in the other CC/GW/AGW thread as "vexing".

[QUOTE=franksargent;1412160]I don't think that another Meltwater Pulse 1A like event is possible at this time or even in this century.

25,000 mm/500 years = 50 mm/year (mind you it's an overall average, I have the relevant papers where at the resolution of the samples, the maxima was ~200mm/year, righer resolution samples may have shown even higher maxima, TBD)

Current sea level rise[/QUOTE

200mm a year would be huge and any higher even more so.

The correlation between summer melting and glacier movement described for folks like me well here.

"A paper by Göran Ekström et al. shows that the increased speed of Greenland glaciers occurs in distinct lurches (observed as micro "ice-quakes") that are strongly seasonal, with the greatest number occuring in late summer. This provides evidence that meltwater plays an important role in the acceleration of Greenland's glaciers. Essentially, the idea is that surface melting that occurs in the summer can make its way quickly down to the glacier bed, lubricating the bed and allowing the glaciers to slide more rapidly. The "ice quakes" occur because the rough bedrock surface causes the glaciers to stick; they only accelerate when enough hydraulic pressure has built up to help float the glacier over the bumps. This is strong evidence that climate, not merely "internal ice sheet dynamics", has contributed to the recent increases in Greenland's glaciers. Indeed, a doubling of the rate of quakes has occurred over the past five years, just as the aerial extent of surface melting has increased."~ RealClimate http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=276

HS, you may find this link interesting.

The hunt for planet Earth's oldest ice


EDIT: U.S.-led, International Research Team Confirms Alps-like Mountain Range Exists under East Antarctic Ice Sheet

Amazing, thanks!. Robin Bell is leading the expedition and twittering. Updates appear here http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/gambit/

I know why you say that, Hands Sandon - you want to discredit the opinions that differ from yours.

My links ... the entirety of my posts ... are the result of analysis of professionally published information, no original work or conclusions on my part.

SO, you see, the accusation that I have a "somewhat limited level of understanding" on the subject actually is a reflection of your disagreement with professionals in the field in question, not any reflection on my understanding of the science at all. It is, of course, your right to disagree, but you really should be aware of whom you disagree with. I have no personal investment in the subject, I don't think it makes me look "smarter" or anything to disagree with others, I just read what I read and conclude what I conclude based on what credibility is earned by the authors of the studies and papers I read. I give more credence to facts and not alarmists who throw accusations around like flower petals at a wedding, so that's why Hanson is ignored. Let him continue trying to get attention by making unfounded claims like "1998 the hottest year on record". I'll continue reading articles that don't fabricate the data for the graphs they use.

Like I said earlier in this thread - I just read what's written and try to ignore the politics. I can understand how attractive it might be to feel superior ... to feel above the unwashed and unlearned, but I would caution against throwing in with politicians when science is the topic.

In the end, the news that doesn't get published on CNN is more interesting than the news that does -

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

If the fact that arctic sea ice had increased in the last several years been published, I would consider the topic devoid of politics - but since it's not been advertised and we're still doing the "save the poor polar bears" thing, well, I am forced to conclude that politics is running the show. That makes the claims suspect, at least as far as I'm concerned.

I don't have time, this minute, to respond in full to your post. So briefly I'll give you a link of the two graphs which amounted to ....wait for it ....0.02 degrees change, concerning Al Gore's statement that 1998 was the hottest year on record, in the US lower 48 states. Not exactly a huge change at all there.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007...ly_disprov.php
Must go, later

Here are the global highest temperature over the last century, and yes they do include, 1998.

" Image to right: 2005 was the warmest year since the late 1800s, according to NASA scientists. 1998, 2002 and 2003 and 2004 followed as the next four warmest years. Credit: NASA"
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/env...5_warmest.html

Like I was saying earlier things are being manipulated. But you have every right to believe what you do. I listen to those who produce the information and who have the desire to treat the data with enough respect to review it carefully and in relationship to the broad wealth of data, not just cherry picking. Cherry picking your science, will convince some of those who have reasons to be against preventative measures, but they'll be increasingly ignored as a group. Indeed, over time only the most misinformed conspiracy minded individuals and groups will be still willing to do so IMHO. I'm sure you disagree, but wait another ten years or so and see if I'm right. An accurate interpretation of the science will become even harder over time to deny, just like we all know now the earth is, roughly speaking, round.