OP
- Thread Starter
- #21
A primer on handling climate issues for republicans from Powerlineblog.com...
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/06/029197.php
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/06/029197.php
Snow in june...in Hawaii...
- Thread starter billc
- Start date
OP
- Thread Starter
- #22
Actually, I think that they have said that the warming is not caused by human activity.The science hasn't proven the connection yet since the method of measuring global temperatures has been manipulated by the supporters of man mad global warming. Once again see Climat-gate and then look at some of my earlier posts on the temperature sensors and where they are currently placed.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 1,451
Blade96
Senior Master
lol true
actually i do read what conservatives have to say about things though. I do want to get both sides before i decide what to believe in. Some stances are easier than others to decide what 'you are' though.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #25
The internet is great...and about melting polar ice...
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2871-are-the-ice-caps-melting
Arctic Conditions
All this ice loss must mean the Arctic is heating up, right? On the contrary, DMI admits little difference in Arctic temperatures between 1958 and 2009, and data from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) indicates a cooling trend in the Arctic since the 1940s. Indeed, some climate scientists — even those who support the idea of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW) — are predicting Earth will experience a period of cooling for the next two or three dec-ades.
A top climate modeler with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Mojib Latif, said as much at last summer’s UN World Climate Conference in Geneva. A confirmed adherent to AGW, Latif explained that cyclical changes in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans cause Earth’s temperatures to fluctuate between warm and cold modes every 20 to 30 years. He said we are at the beginning of a cooling period. The head of climate prediction at the U.K.’s National Weather Service (the Met Office), James Murphy, agreed and added that ocean cycles are contributing factors in the loss of Arctic sea ice. “The oceans are key to decadal natural variability,” Murphy said.
The head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group, Anastasios Tsonis, supports Latif’s findings with further evidence showing that global temperatures depend largely on oceanic “multi-decadal oscillations,” or MDOs. Tsonis does not deny human activities can contribute to rising temperatures, but he disagrees they can affect climate in any significant way. In an interview with the U.K.’s Daily Mail, Tsonis explained that the latest MDO warm mode has brought on the global-warming hysteria of the past few years. Recalling ice-age predictions made in the 1970s, he said, “Perhaps we will see talk of an ice age again by the early 2030s, just as the MDOs shift once more and temperatures begin to rise.”
AND THE MONEY QUOTE:
Worst-case Scenario
Regardless of whether, where, or how much ice is melting, total global sea ice extent in the past 30 years shows practically no trend, with 2008 and 2009 peak sea ice seasons equivalent to the 1979-2000 mean.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2871-are-the-ice-caps-melting
Arctic Conditions
All this ice loss must mean the Arctic is heating up, right? On the contrary, DMI admits little difference in Arctic temperatures between 1958 and 2009, and data from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) indicates a cooling trend in the Arctic since the 1940s. Indeed, some climate scientists — even those who support the idea of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW) — are predicting Earth will experience a period of cooling for the next two or three dec-ades.
A top climate modeler with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Mojib Latif, said as much at last summer’s UN World Climate Conference in Geneva. A confirmed adherent to AGW, Latif explained that cyclical changes in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans cause Earth’s temperatures to fluctuate between warm and cold modes every 20 to 30 years. He said we are at the beginning of a cooling period. The head of climate prediction at the U.K.’s National Weather Service (the Met Office), James Murphy, agreed and added that ocean cycles are contributing factors in the loss of Arctic sea ice. “The oceans are key to decadal natural variability,” Murphy said.
The head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group, Anastasios Tsonis, supports Latif’s findings with further evidence showing that global temperatures depend largely on oceanic “multi-decadal oscillations,” or MDOs. Tsonis does not deny human activities can contribute to rising temperatures, but he disagrees they can affect climate in any significant way. In an interview with the U.K.’s Daily Mail, Tsonis explained that the latest MDO warm mode has brought on the global-warming hysteria of the past few years. Recalling ice-age predictions made in the 1970s, he said, “Perhaps we will see talk of an ice age again by the early 2030s, just as the MDOs shift once more and temperatures begin to rise.”
AND THE MONEY QUOTE:
Worst-case Scenario
Regardless of whether, where, or how much ice is melting, total global sea ice extent in the past 30 years shows practically no trend, with 2008 and 2009 peak sea ice seasons equivalent to the 1979-2000 mean.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #26
and another article on ice...http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/03/goddard_polar_ice/
from the article:
In the August 29, 2000 edition of the New York Times, the same NSIDC expert, Mark Serreze, said:
"There's nothing to be necessarily alarmed about. There's been open water at the pole before. We have no clear evidence at this point that this is related to global climate change."
During the summer of 2000 there was "a large body of ice-free water about 10 miles long and 3 miles wide near the pole". Also in 2000, Dr Claire Parkinson at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center was quoted as saying: "The fact of having no ice at the pole is not so stunning."
Another article on ice...
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/...ce-caps-really-melting-due-to-global-warming/
from the articel:
ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.
The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent’s western coast.
Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth’s ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water. Extensive melting of Antarctic ice sheets would be required to raise sea levels substantially, and ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica. The destabilisation of the Wilkins ice shelf generated international headlines this month.
However, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia.
East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week’s meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown “significant cooling in recent decades”.
from the article:
In the August 29, 2000 edition of the New York Times, the same NSIDC expert, Mark Serreze, said:
"There's nothing to be necessarily alarmed about. There's been open water at the pole before. We have no clear evidence at this point that this is related to global climate change."
During the summer of 2000 there was "a large body of ice-free water about 10 miles long and 3 miles wide near the pole". Also in 2000, Dr Claire Parkinson at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center was quoted as saying: "The fact of having no ice at the pole is not so stunning."
Another article on ice...
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/...ce-caps-really-melting-due-to-global-warming/
from the articel:
ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.
The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent’s western coast.
Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth’s ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water. Extensive melting of Antarctic ice sheets would be required to raise sea levels substantially, and ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica. The destabilisation of the Wilkins ice shelf generated international headlines this month.
However, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia.
East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week’s meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown “significant cooling in recent decades”.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #27
I am posting small bits of articles over several posts because Sukerkin says he doesn't like long posts. So some out there may have to just cope with this a little bit.
Another article on ice...
http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/polar_history_icecap_melting_natural.htm
AND THE MONEY QUOTE:
HE melting of sea ice at the North Pole may be the result of a centuries-old natural cycle and not an indicator of man-made global warming, Scottish scientists have found.
After researching the log-books of Arctic explorers spanning the past 300 years, scientists believe that the outer edge of sea ice may expand and contract over regular periods of 60 to 80 years. This change corresponds roughly with known cyclical changes in atmospheric temperature.
The finding opens the possibility that the recent worrying changes in Arctic sea ice are simply the result of standard cyclical movements, and not a harbinger of major climate change.
..................................................
Soooo....still not impressed by the alleged science that attributes warming to man made causes...
Another article on ice...
http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/polar_history_icecap_melting_natural.htm
AND THE MONEY QUOTE:
HE melting of sea ice at the North Pole may be the result of a centuries-old natural cycle and not an indicator of man-made global warming, Scottish scientists have found.
After researching the log-books of Arctic explorers spanning the past 300 years, scientists believe that the outer edge of sea ice may expand and contract over regular periods of 60 to 80 years. This change corresponds roughly with known cyclical changes in atmospheric temperature.
The finding opens the possibility that the recent worrying changes in Arctic sea ice are simply the result of standard cyclical movements, and not a harbinger of major climate change.
..................................................
Soooo....still not impressed by the alleged science that attributes warming to man made causes...
OP
- Thread Starter
- #28
I dedicate this polar ice cap article to Blade 96...
http://educate-yourself.org/glw/meltingicecaps03jul08.shtml
from the article:
But in 2008 we are not seeing that. The winds and temperatures in the Arctic are quite different, and as of today there is more ice than normal around Siberia. The Arctic melt season ends in about seven weeks because the sun will get too low. As of June 26, there is no indication that the North Pole is in danger of melting.
The BBC's Richard Black wrote an article last week claiming that Arctic Ice is melting "even faster than last year." Looking at the Cryosphere Today map, it is abundantly clear that ice is melting more slowly than last year. By the end of June, 2007 the Hudson Bay was essentially ice-free. This year it is close to normal, with cold temperatures predicted for most of the rest of the short melt season. Someone is apparently having trouble reading maps at either the BBC and/or NSIDC.
http://educate-yourself.org/glw/meltingicecaps03jul08.shtml
from the article:
But in 2008 we are not seeing that. The winds and temperatures in the Arctic are quite different, and as of today there is more ice than normal around Siberia. The Arctic melt season ends in about seven weeks because the sun will get too low. As of June 26, there is no indication that the North Pole is in danger of melting.
The BBC's Richard Black wrote an article last week claiming that Arctic Ice is melting "even faster than last year." Looking at the Cryosphere Today map, it is abundantly clear that ice is melting more slowly than last year. By the end of June, 2007 the Hudson Bay was essentially ice-free. This year it is close to normal, with cold temperatures predicted for most of the rest of the short melt season. Someone is apparently having trouble reading maps at either the BBC and/or NSIDC.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
How will you explain these away then?
OP
- Thread Starter
- #30
From one of the articles above:
After researching the log-books of Arctic explorers spanning the past 300 years, scientists believe that the outer edge of sea ice may expand and contract over regular periods of 60 to 80 years. This change corresponds roughly with known cyclical changes in atmospheric temperature.
2004
- 1928
--------
0076 years, the cycle mentioned in one of the articles above.
from one of the articles:
Northwest Passage?
Last summer, the headlines read "First ever traversal of the Northwest Passage". This sounds very dramatic, except that it is entirely incorrect. As the BBC reported: "In 1905, Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen became the first person to successfully navigate the Northwest Passage, in a wooden sailboat." The Northwest Passage has been navigated at least one hundred times over the last century.
According to official US Weather Bureau records (pdf) from 1922, there was open sailing very close to the North Pole that year. Anthony Watts unearthed this quote from the Weather Bureau:
"In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north as 81 degrees in ice-free water.
After researching the log-books of Arctic explorers spanning the past 300 years, scientists believe that the outer edge of sea ice may expand and contract over regular periods of 60 to 80 years. This change corresponds roughly with known cyclical changes in atmospheric temperature.
2004
- 1928
--------
0076 years, the cycle mentioned in one of the articles above.
from one of the articles:
Northwest Passage?
Last summer, the headlines read "First ever traversal of the Northwest Passage". This sounds very dramatic, except that it is entirely incorrect. As the BBC reported: "In 1905, Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen became the first person to successfully navigate the Northwest Passage, in a wooden sailboat." The Northwest Passage has been navigated at least one hundred times over the last century.
According to official US Weather Bureau records (pdf) from 1922, there was open sailing very close to the North Pole that year. Anthony Watts unearthed this quote from the Weather Bureau:
"In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north as 81 degrees in ice-free water.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #31
Snows and kilamanjaro...
http://www.masslive.com/news/index....imanjaro_defy_global_warming_predictions.html
THE MONEY QUOTE:
H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow and head of environmental programs at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative think tank based in Texas, said the Kilimanjaro prediction “is just one in a number of global warming scare stories that scientists have had to recant or at least modify in the face of substantial counter evidence.”
“Unfortunately, we made the prediction. I wish we hadn’t.”
- Douglas Hardy, UMass geoscientist
“The Kilimanjaro predictions were suspect at the time they were made. Critics noted that there was abundant evidence that the snow caps on Kilimanjaro had been in retreat decades before greenhouse gas emissions began to rise dramatically in the middle of the century,” he said.
http://www.masslive.com/news/index....imanjaro_defy_global_warming_predictions.html
THE MONEY QUOTE:
H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow and head of environmental programs at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative think tank based in Texas, said the Kilimanjaro prediction “is just one in a number of global warming scare stories that scientists have had to recant or at least modify in the face of substantial counter evidence.”
“Unfortunately, we made the prediction. I wish we hadn’t.”
- Douglas Hardy, UMass geoscientist
“The Kilimanjaro predictions were suspect at the time they were made. Critics noted that there was abundant evidence that the snow caps on Kilimanjaro had been in retreat decades before greenhouse gas emissions began to rise dramatically in the middle of the century,” he said.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #32
How do you explain the loss of these glaciers...
http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/larson/glacier_maps.html
Hmmm...if you look at the pictures of my home 18,000 years ago in the post, it was covered by a glacier. Today, not so much. What happened to the glacier?
Hmm...was there a lot of man made industry 18,000 years ago? 8,000 years ago? And yet, the glaciers melted...hmmmm.
Was this an act of weather, or global climate change...hmmm?
http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/larson/glacier_maps.html
Hmmm...if you look at the pictures of my home 18,000 years ago in the post, it was covered by a glacier. Today, not so much. What happened to the glacier?
Hmm...was there a lot of man made industry 18,000 years ago? 8,000 years ago? And yet, the glaciers melted...hmmmm.
Was this an act of weather, or global climate change...hmmm?
Last edited:
Empty Hands
Senior Master
Surely even you can tell the difference between 18,000 years and a few decades.
Ramirez
Black Belt
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2007
- Messages
- 588
- Reaction score
- 10
Blade96
Senior Master
hehe
It's cold up there all of the time. In August, it still is in the 30s.
Education:
PhD, Applied Philosophy, Bowling Green State University, 2001
MA, Applied Philosphy, Bowling Green State University, 1992
BA, Cultural Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, 1986
A true expert on climate.
Melting and sublimation both contribute to the ice loss, says study author Doug Hardy, a glaciologist from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. The glaciers have been in retreat for more than a century, Hardy says, with a drying climate in East Africa one main culprit.
"The top [of the mountain] is very, very dry. It's a desert up there," Hardy says. The lack of new snowfall means the dark, dirty tops of glaciers absorb more solar radiation than they otherwise would. In addition, the nearby Indian Ocean has warmed, says Hardy, altering circulation patterns that used to bring more moisture to the mountain. But Hardy says there is too little data to blame the ice loss on increasing atmospheric temperatures. "It's entirely reasonable that, yes, the glaciers are going away on Kilimanjaro in response to global warming," but the link is via Indian Ocean-driven circulation patterns rather than via a warmer atmosphere, says Hardy. The study is published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA1.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #38
a quick look at the climate-gate scandal and further finds...
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/02/09/john-lott-joseph-daleo-climate-change-noaa-james-hansen/
From the article:
But probably the most damaging report has come from Joseph D’Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology and co-founder of the Weather Channel, and Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and founder of SurfaceStations.org.
In a January 29 report, they find that starting in 1990, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began systematically eliminating climate measuring stations in cooler locations around the world. Yes, that's right. They began eliminating stations that tended to record cooler temperatures and drove up the average measured temperature. The eliminated stations had been in higher latitudes and altitudes, inland areas away from the sea, as well as more rural locations. The drop in the number of weather stations was dramatic, declining from more than 6,000 stations to fewer than 1,500.
D’Aleo and Watts show that the jumps in measured global temperature occur just when the number of weather stations is cut. But there is another bias that this change to more urban stations also exacerbates. Recorded temperatures in more urban areas rise over time simply because more densely populated areas produce more heat. Combining the greater share of weather stations in more urban areas over time with this urban heat effect also tends to increase the rate that recorded temperatures tend to rise over time.
Their report provides examples of how the systematic elimination of stations and unexplained adjustments in temperature data caused measured temperatures to rise for Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Norway, Sweden, and the United States. Many adjustments change what would have been a drop in temperatures into an increase. Take New Zealand, where D’Aleo and Watts note: “About half the adjustments actually created a warming trend where none existed; the other half greatly exaggerated existing warming.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010...limate-change-noaa-james-hansen#ixzz1OuJkZ6Hv
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010...limate-change-noaa-james-hansen#ixzz1OuJDUWS1
.....................................
Tampering with the data I guess would take someone with extensive backgroung in climate research.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/02/09/john-lott-joseph-daleo-climate-change-noaa-james-hansen/
From the article:
But probably the most damaging report has come from Joseph D’Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology and co-founder of the Weather Channel, and Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and founder of SurfaceStations.org.
In a January 29 report, they find that starting in 1990, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began systematically eliminating climate measuring stations in cooler locations around the world. Yes, that's right. They began eliminating stations that tended to record cooler temperatures and drove up the average measured temperature. The eliminated stations had been in higher latitudes and altitudes, inland areas away from the sea, as well as more rural locations. The drop in the number of weather stations was dramatic, declining from more than 6,000 stations to fewer than 1,500.
D’Aleo and Watts show that the jumps in measured global temperature occur just when the number of weather stations is cut. But there is another bias that this change to more urban stations also exacerbates. Recorded temperatures in more urban areas rise over time simply because more densely populated areas produce more heat. Combining the greater share of weather stations in more urban areas over time with this urban heat effect also tends to increase the rate that recorded temperatures tend to rise over time.
Their report provides examples of how the systematic elimination of stations and unexplained adjustments in temperature data caused measured temperatures to rise for Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Norway, Sweden, and the United States. Many adjustments change what would have been a drop in temperatures into an increase. Take New Zealand, where D’Aleo and Watts note: “About half the adjustments actually created a warming trend where none existed; the other half greatly exaggerated existing warming.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010...limate-change-noaa-james-hansen#ixzz1OuJkZ6Hv
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010...limate-change-noaa-james-hansen#ixzz1OuJDUWS1
.....................................
Tampering with the data I guess would take someone with extensive backgroung in climate research.
RandomPhantom700
Master of Arts
I saw the title of the thread and was all like "How could he possibly politicize this?" I know, I know, shoulda known better than to even ask.....
Sensei Payne
Black Belt
Its called the Carbon Tax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax
In other words...another way for Big Brother to make a buck off of us who struggle to fill there gas tanks just to get to work and perpetuate the cycle.
What they are planning to do is tax the big corperations...and we all know where that fee goes..they hand it on down to the consumer.
