11/22/2009 06:59:41 AM EST

Warmer Scientists exposed while struggling to defend the gravy train.

posted by Hugh Everett

time 2
time 3

time 4

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
Boston Herald: In an embarrassing blow to the movement to combat global warming, hackers have posted hundreds of e-mails from a world-renowned British institute that show researchers colluding to exaggerate warming and undermine skeptics.

Associated Press: In one leaked e-mail, the research center's director, Phil Jones, writes to colleagues about graphs showing climate statistics over the last millennium. He alludes to a technique used by a fellow scientist to "hide the decline" in recent global temperatures. Some evidence appears to show a halt in a rise of global temperatures from about 1960, but is contradicted by other evidence which appears to show a rise in temperatures is continuing.

New York Times: In several e-mail exchanges, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and other scientists discuss gaps in understanding of recent variations in temperature. Skeptic Web sites pointed out one line in particular: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” Dr. Trenberth wrote.

At issue were sets of data, both employed in two studies. One data set showed long-term temperature effects on tree rings; the other, thermometer readings for the past 100 years. Through the last century, tree rings and thermometers show a consistent rise in temperature until 1960, when some tree rings, for unknown reasons, no longer show that rise.
< MSNBC and Dylan Ratigan busted and contrite | C'mon Cenk... you're better than that >
 Display:
Warmer Scientists exposed while struggling to defend the gravy train. | 65 comments (65 topical, 0 hidden)
I knew it was a mistake to read your article... (none / 0)
...because, once again, you have failed to understand what you saw.

Some people broke into some computers owned by scientists, stole some files, planted some of their own, and are now quoting some scientists out of context.  You trust these criminals -- who will be sent to prison as soon as they are caught -- to say that not just the handful of scientists who were the victims of this burglary, but millions of scientists across the world, have been lying to us.

Ken, the northern polar ice cap will be gone in a few years.  The Antarctic ice cap is melting at a rate of about 6% a decade, and the rate is increasing.  In the Arctic, the rate is more than 11% per decade.  Sea levels are rising at devastating rates.  The worlds glaciers are melting faster and faster.

If you don't believe that devastating consequences are in store for us as a result of these events, then you are no less than criminally insane.  And it doesn't really matter if you don't think that humans caused it because we know that humans can actually moderate and reverse these changes IF WE TAKE ACTION.

In other words, we can leave our children a planet that still has the states of Florida and Louisiana, several low-lying countries like The Netherlands and Burma, not to mention countless pacific islands.  Even better, we can pass on a world with healthy oceans, breathable air, and the millions of animal and plant species that will otherwise become extinct soon, thus threatening our own species' survival.

If we take action then we can save our own habitat.  But in order to do that, we have to ignore the dangerous idiots who say that climate change isn't happening...

...because it is.

I realize that you don't want to take responsibility for it, but that doesn't change the fact that your children will curse your existence when they realize what you've done to them.

But the one thing that I really don't understand is why so many right-wing idiots are so resistant to embracing green industries and the greening of our economy.  It's a veritable gold mine!  Investors are getting rich developing and deploying green technologies and energy production facilities.  "There's gold in them thar hills", and there's almost no competition for it despite the huge demand.  Why isn't the right-wing jumping on the bandwagon in order to try to get some of that money?

It can't be because they don't think that climate change isn't happening and that they would, therefore, be ripping people off.  They've never been particularly worried about stealing from us before, so why worry about it now?  Besides, when it's too late even for them to deny climate change, it also will be too late to get in on the ground floor of the really good opportunities.

Go green, Ken, even if you don't believe in it.  You'll get rich!


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 11/22/2009 10:21:21 AM EST

Totally agree (none / 0)
especially with your last sentences. People who care about the environment should make that their main argument.
There is a lot of money in green industries, so let's do everything to encourage investment in green industries.

Best would be to add a little patriotism:
China is heavily investing in green technology. Do you guys want to be beaten by yellow people who eat with sticks?
Come on and show those rice eaters what American industries are about!

"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious."

by opposition on 11/22/2009 11:42:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Bigotry in the service of progress? (none / 0)
Cripes!  Well, it's going to be a while until these bigots die off, so maybe using their own bigotry to manipulate them isn't such a ba--

Hey!

WAITAMINIT, DAMMIT!

You almost had me there.  You're a tricky one.  I'm going to be keeping my eye on you.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 11/22/2009 12:24:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks (none / 0)

"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious."

by opposition on 11/22/2009 01:04:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What color sticky notes are you using for him? (none / 0)
orange seems to be taken, and yellow, and pink

by birdboy1 on 11/22/2009 02:49:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
There's no other choice. (none / 0)
Lime green.  But I'm going to have to clear some space in all of the international orange ones that I've been using for you.  Cripes!  There must be a hundred of them!  I need to get a whiteboard and start using colored markers for this stuff.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 11/22/2009 03:33:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Frightened and Frustrated (none / 0)
Ken is like a frightened and frustrated child. He is just desperately clinging to any straws that will "prove" that his beloved ultra-conservative clown idols are right and not just full of hypocritical nonsense. Posting this transparently ridiculous crap is the resort of someone who has nowhere left to turn. Come on, we see this nonsense from the conservaclowns all the time. Ken thinks he provokes debate. He does not. He is our own personal Glenn Beck - someone we can insult and laugh at because we don't stand a chance of Glenn or Rush or Billo taking our phone calls. The best thing to do is ignore him unless you just feel like venting - sometimes it's fun.

by eworr on 11/22/2009 08:01:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Last Days of The Great Global Hoax. (none / 1)
it's over
There is universal agreement that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. But now comes news that the planet is actually cooling.

As the CO2 concentration continues to increase, while the temperature of the planet continues to decrease, we will witness the demise of Global Liberalism.

Atmospheric science will be used like a club to bludgeon liberalism like a baby seal.

baby seal

by Hugh Everett on 11/22/2009 11:04:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Jesse forgot to throw the flag. (none / 0)
The last sentence is very awkward in construction, with disjointed double similies.

It should have read:

"Atmospheric science will be used to bludgeon liberalism like a club on a baby seal."

by Hugh Everett on 11/23/2009 01:38:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Of course, that's total nonsense. (none / 0)
No one who passed high school chemistry could believe that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere could lead to global cooling unless he was severely mentally disturbed.  And, given that there is NO evidence that the earth is cooling (I note that you didn't even try to provide a legitimate source for such a claim), we can only conclude that you are either deliberately fomenting a lie or that you are supremely ignorant.  The answer to that question relies, of course, on the extent of your knowledge and intelligence.

We'll just assume that you lack knowledge and leave it at that.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 11/23/2009 01:51:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Time & temperature are on my side. (none / 0)
I didn't say that significant increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration was causing global cooling.

I said we are witnessing a concurrence of significant increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration, while at the same time, some degree of global cooling.

When we take a 30 year slice of atmospheric history, and global CO2 concentration doesn't correlate well with global temperature, then all of a sudden you warmers have a very worrisome cause and effect problem.

In the recently released (and now famous) words of Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”.
Star is a kook.

by Hugh Everett on 11/23/2009 02:36:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken, the ice caps and glaciers are melting... (none / 0)
...faster and faster all the time.  The short-period variations that you're trying to point to as evidence of global cooling can be considered to be no more than grasping at straws.

We have to look at these trends not over months but over decades.

Ken, no matter how much you don't want to face it, In just one or two decades, the Arctic Ocean will be clear of ice.  No one doubts that except for a minuscule number of fruitcakes.  I'm willing to bet that not even the corporatists who are so desperately fighting efforts to repair our climate believe that what they're doing is justified by the facts (in their minds, justification by the quarterly bottom-line is all that is needed).

But I'm not sure why I'm arguing with you about this as if you have a reasoned position.  I know that you don't.  And I do believe that you have no concern for the well-being of your country.  Perhaps I'm arguing this case here simply because it's Sunday, I'm getting bored with writing code and waiting for computers, and this is better than twiddling my thumbs.

Fortunately, some days are better than others.

Oh, and that "travesty" that you quoted?  It sounds powerful for your side, doesn't it?

The real travesty, however, is that it's a quote publicized by the criminals who broke into a computer system, stole some files, planted other files of their own, and who are now being viewed as credible sources of information.

Besides, until those handful of scientists who were the victims of this crime speak for themselves, which they have no obligation to do, we must simply rely upon the millions of other scientists who say that your stand on climate change is pure bullshit.

Ken, if some left-wing criminals had broken into Sarah Palin's bus, said they stole her diary, and started publishing quotes saying that Palin was having orgies on the bus between stops, would you also be celebrating those "exposés" and claiming them to be credible?

If you say "no" to any similar situation involving your favorite right-wing hero, then you are revealing yourself as a hypocrite.  

Think about it.

Besides, you don't really understand science, or the scientific method, or the scientific issues involved with climate change to any degree whatsoever.  Surely, you admit that, don't you?

And if that quote is somewhat accurate, do you know the context in which the word "travesty" was used?

Ken, the answer to that question is that you don't have the faintest idea what he could have meant.

Yikes!  Why am I talking about this?  Any reasonable person would already understand these elementary principles and wouldn't have to have them explained.  Only someone who was either supremely ignorant of the nature of truth or who was deliberately lying would use that quote in the context in which you have used it and claim there was some validity to that usage.

Hmmm.  I'll guess we'll just have to assume, once again, that you're ignorant.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 11/23/2009 03:16:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm laughing at Star, and he knows it. (none / 0)
Star might be the only liberal in this forum who understands two very simple concepts: 1. Statistical correlation. 2. The second derivative of calculus.

Mathematics is the Universal Language. Star can look at the 30 year plots for atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature anomaly, and instantly recognize that he's got a BIG PROBLEM. So can the Warmer Scientists who earn their livings from government grants.

That's why Star is squealing like a pig stuck under a gate about polar ice caps. That's why the Warmer Scientists are sending each other emails of desperation. Their gravy train is melting away, like an ice cube on a hot August day.
OH SHIT! There's NO CORRELATION!

by Hugh Everett on 11/23/2009 03:58:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Your statement says..nothing (none / 0)

The entire thrust of your rather disjointed attack is that 'warmer" scientists are fabricating data for government grants.

You invoke differential calculus and other "scary" terms as proof plus a left handed complement implying that only you, can understand this complicated subject.

Obviously, you want to give the appearance of "understanding" the mathematics so why don't you explain it to the lesser mortals among us.

I know what anti-warming site have posted. You won't need the Wiki graphs.

Please, don't spare us on the technical details.

"We" can handle it.

 

 

 

Before me things create were none, save things Eternal, and eternal I endure.

All hope abandon ye who enter here.

by OccamsRazor on 11/23/2009 07:56:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The subject is childlike in its simplicity. (none / 0)
The debate is about two graphs, and the mathematical relationship between the two.

The Warmers’ argument is very simple: Increases in global atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause increases in global temperature.

The problem with the simple cause and effect theory is that it’s easy to measure CO2 concentration, global temperature, and the correlation between the two.

When scientists measure the correlation between CO2 and temperature over centuries, they find interesting results.

Warmer theories are convincing and compelling to children and non-scientific simpletons, but day by day, science will disprove the notion that anthropogenic CO2 is increasing the temperature of the planet to any measurable and significant degree.
 
As soon as you and Fred wake up (because it always seems to happen at the exactly the same time, even though you're in "England"), why don't the two of you put your heads together and try to prove that man-made CO2 is causing the temperture of the planet to increase.

I'll be waiting for you, right here in this thread dedicated to Global Warming.

by Hugh Everett on 11/24/2009 02:39:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
A little off topic... (none / 0)
"non-scientific simpletons,"

glad to see you appreciating scientists.

Just thought you might like to know,

only 6% of Scientists identify as Republican
only 9% of Scientists identify as Conservative

So given that, by a landslide majority, most scientific types are liberal are the simpletons you refer to Republicans?

by 0f course on 11/24/2009 10:59:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken, your argument has nothing to do with math (none / 0)
Your argument is based on the denial of evidence, not on its exposition.  You say that what is observed isn't really there.  You say that the word of a few criminals must be trusted above that of millions of scientists.

Besides, If you actually look at the links that I provided, they present the data that shows that the rate of the melting of our ice caps is, in fact, accelerating, so you can take that second derivative and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.  And you should probably learn how to swim.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 11/23/2009 10:59:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Context (none / 0)
Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.0 6.001. [PDF] [1]http: //www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Tren berth/trenberth.papers/Ener gyDiagnostics09final.pdf (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007. see [2]http: //www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/pro ducts/GODAS/ocean_briefing_ gif/global_ocean_monitoring _current.ppt

Kevin



If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's "free."

by TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsTwba on 11/23/2009 11:41:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Two days? (none / 0)
You're talking about two days? Are you seriously proposing that two days is significant?

Twba, that simply proves your extreme ignorance on the subject.  If you think that two days, or two seasons, or even two years means anything with regard to this subject, then our educational system has utterly failed you, and you should sue the schools that you attended for negligence.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 11/23/2009 07:21:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wake up call (none / 0)
Please direct your complaints to the author of the email which I reproduced so you could judge the context for yourself. I'm sure Kevin Trenberth would enjoy your calling him extremely ignorant and suggesting he sue MIT for negligence.

If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's "free."

by TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsTwba on 11/25/2009 12:58:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You didn't answer my question. (none / 0)
Do you really think that two days is significant to the discussion on global warming?


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 11/25/2009 05:48:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The real significance of the "two days". (none / 0)
It proves the post was authentic.
Are you fucking stupid, or what?

by Hugh Everett on 11/25/2009 06:07:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You're welcome (none / 0)
And if that quote is somewhat accurate, do you know the context in which the word "travesty" was used?

I gave you the fucking context on a silver fucking platter.

[blockfuckingquote]
Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.0 6.001. [PDF] [1]http: //www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Tren berth/trenberth.papers/Ener gyDiagnostics09final.pdf (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007. see [2]http: //www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/pro ducts/GODAS/ocean_briefing_ gif/global_ocean_monitoring _current.ppt

Kevin
[/blockfuckingquote]

Do you really think that two days is significant to the discussion on global warming?

Ask the author of the email, you ungrateful fuckwit.

If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's "free."

by TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsTwba on 11/25/2009 06:20:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Twba is subtle and oblique, (none / 0)
but I don't think he respects Star's intellect.

by Hugh Everett on 11/25/2009 06:25:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
My, my... (none / 0)
...all of that hyperbole just to get to this:

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007.

So the travesty is that their observing system is inadequate.  The author suggests that the data he's seen that says that temperatures should be higher is wrong, but he can't prove it yet.  Nevertheless, there is nothing in that quote to suggest that the current warming trend is not an emergency condition.

The problem with the deniers is that they don't bother to examine the logic of their position, and they keep making these boring and weak arguments.

When you take a quote out of context, and especially when what you do quote can be construed to contradict you, you shouldn't think that you'll earn anyone's respect except from similarly weak-minded people.

Besides, that "quote" was published by criminals who broke into a computer system, stole some files, and planted some of their own.  That "quote" is far from being authenticated.  Maybe when the criminals are put on trial for their crime, we can find out how authentic it is.

But doesn't anyone else find it funny how the pseudo-conservatives and libercharlatans around here are so willing to trust the word of criminals?


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 11/25/2009 07:05:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Damn! (none / 0)
I'm very dissatisfied with this comment editor.  Getting things to format properly is sometimes impossible.

The paragraphs beginning "The fact is that" and "That said there is", i.e., the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, were in a "blockquote" tag and should have been indented.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 11/25/2009 07:10:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Travesty of why JohnnyStarNM can't read (none / 0)
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.

Nevertheless, there is nothing in that quote to suggest that the current warming trend is not an emergency condition.

Kevin Trenberth just told you that there is no current warming trend. Did you completely overlook that he wrote of "the lack of warming?"

Besides, that "quote" was published by criminals who broke into a computer system...

Climategate is about a whistleblower hacking an email server like the Pentagon Papers is about a defense analyst walking off with classified documents.

If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's "free."

by TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsTwba on 12/08/2009 10:20:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
That's not what Kevin Trenberth said. (none / 0)
You're trying to use your misunderstanding of science to claim that global warming isn't happening.  Your statement is further proof that you need adult supervision when playing with science.  Face it: you don't understand what he's saying.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 12/08/2009 11:05:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Kevin Trenberth wrote: (none / 0)
[blockquote]
Hi Tom

How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!

Kevin

[/blockquote]

If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's "free."

by TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsTwba on 12/09/2009 08:50:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Interesting (none / 0)
It's interesting that prior to mid-1994 the 13 month average frequently oscillated above and below the 0.0 line. But since mid-1994 the 13 month average has never gone below the 0.0 line and since mid-2008 is trending upward again.

by CptRich on 11/23/2009 11:18:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Anyone with ANY common sense... (none / 1)
Knows that the planet goes through hot and cold cycles, and we are simply at a point in our technology where we can recognize that fact. Can we develop new and better technologies to reduce pollution and improve our "footprint?" Yes, but do we need to do it at the expense of sanity and rational thought? No...

by bobo1 on 11/22/2009 04:33:04 PM EST

You do know how to swim, don't you? (none / 0)
11% each decade, Bob.  And we have the power to change it before we're forced to spend quintillions recovering from our neglect today.

But why should you care?  You won't be around to see it, will you?


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 11/22/2009 05:08:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
11%? (none / 1)
Is that the tax rate increase you want to place on productive members of soceity to pay for you running around spouting off BS you know very little about? Or is that 11% the percentage of your brain you actually use when you spew this nonsense? Or perhaps its 11% of the population who eats this shit up lock stock & barrel without actually stopping to THINK for themselves for a change? If the water reaches my bunker in the Midwest, then by God its my time to go!

by bobo1 on 11/22/2009 06:11:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
mmhmm (none / 0)
its ok, when all the people in florida and lousianna and cuba are displaced by the rising tides, we will send them to your neck of the woods just to aggrivate the fuck out of you and rub it in your face that republicans seem to embrace willful ignorance while telling everyone else they are wrong.

by Ectheleon on 11/22/2009 08:22:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
11%, Bob, and you can't change that fact (none / 1)
Insults aside, you are completely ignorant in this subject.  The only sources you rely upon are ideologues of ignorance and unqualified charlatans like yourself who help you avoid taking responsibility for your neglectful behavior.

Unless you suffer some accident or fatal illness, Bob, you will live to see the consequences of a melting ice cap.  And you will, by then, no longer be able to deny your part in causing its demise or the horrible consequences that will ensue.  But I doubt that it will bother you much.  I really don't think you have much of a conscience anyway.

Climate change is a test of our individual characters, Bob, and you are failing.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 11/22/2009 09:13:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The other denier... (none / 0)

Who has about the same amount of logic capacity as poor KenTX. The available body of evidence is vast and points in one direction - global warming. Remember, do what the conservatives tell you - just deny everything. It never happened! That will make it all go away, right, Bobo?

 Good luck!

by eworr on 11/22/2009 08:04:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Some more "gravy train" stuff... (none / 1)
Fresh from the freezer!

World's largest ice sheet melting faster than expectedEast Antarctic sheet shedding 57bn tonnes of ice a year and contributing to sea level rises, according to Nasa aerial survey

The East Antarctic ice sheet, which makes up three-quarters of the continent's 14,000 sq km, is losing around 57bn tonnes of ice a year into surrounding waters, according to a satellite survey of the region.

Scientists had thought the ice sheet was reasonably stable, but measurements taken from Nasa's gravity recovery and climate experiment (Grace) show that it started to lose ice steadily from 2006.

The measurements suggest the polar continent could soon contribute more to global sea level rises than Greenland, which is shedding more than 250bn tonnes of ice a year, adding 0.7mm to annual sea level rises.

Satellite data from the whole of Antarctica show the region is now losing around 190bn tonnes of ice a year. Uncertainties in the measurements mean the true ice loss could be between 113bn and 267bn tonnes.

"If the current trend continues or gets worse, Antarctica could become the largest contributor to sea level rises in the world. It could start to lose more ice than Greenland within a few years," said Jianli Chen, of the University of Texas at Austin.

by MedfordTim on 11/22/2009 05:50:38 PM EST

What about this *NYT* article? (none / 1)
From April 23, 2009.

"For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.

"'Advisers to Industry Group Weigh In on Warming “The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.'

But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted."

Further down:

"Environmentalists have long maintained that industry knew early on that the scientific evidence supported a human influence on rising temperatures, but that the evidence was ignored for the sake of companies’ fight against curbs on greenhouse gas emissions. Some environmentalists have compared the tactic to that once used by tobacco companies, which for decades insisted that the science linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer was uncertain. By questioning the science on global warming, these environmentalists say, groups like the Global Climate Coalition were able to sow enough doubt to blunt public concern about a consequential issue and delay government action."
 
And, you know, it just seems to me the real gravy train would be in doing science (or "science") for industry. But that's just me writing.

The article also describes how the following was removed from an technical advisory group's primer:

"The contrarian theories raise interesting questions about our total understanding of climate processes, but they do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climate change.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009 /04/24/science/earth/24deny .html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 &emc=eta1

For an explaination/comment on the hacked e-mails, go to realclimate.org. 






by thisuser on 11/22/2009 07:29:12 PM EST

hmmm... (none / 0)
Well I see a lot of opinions and not a lot of facts thrown around here… so let’s get a few things straight…

Let’s start with some facts…
1. Is the icecaps melting?
Yes… and using the latest reliable data it is 11% in the Arctic region and 3% in the Antarctic region pr. decade… there are no ands ifs or buts about it… but here’s the thing…

If our only concern was water levels we could care less if the Arctic ice cap melted at 11% or 35% or 100% a decade or a year or a minute… you see the Arctic ice cap is floating on water and ice has a larger volume than water so it displaces more water than it holds (for the ice below water) and it will add water (for the ice above the water)… too bad it’s not possible to write mathematical formulas in this forum (or I would have) so you’ll just have to take my word for it (or research it yourself)… but the overall effect of the melting of ice floating in water is actually is miniscule drop in water level and for an ‘ice cube’ the size of the Arctic ice cap the global water levels would drop about 17cm (do the math yourself if you want too)…

The BIG problem for global sea levels is the Antarctic ice cap… and that’s because it lays on land… so ALL the melting of it will result in rising of global sea levels (in an amount that makes the 17cm drop from the Arctic ice cap insignificant)… that coupled with the fact that 61% of all water on Earth (85% of all ice on Earth) is trapped in the Antarctica ice cap (30mill cubic km) if it all melted we would have a net rise of the global sea levels of about 7m and that’s problematic (to say the least)…

But the only concern about the melting icecaps is NOT only the rise or fall of global sea levels but also the salinity and temperature of the seawater… and in that respect the Arctic ice cap becomes EXTREMELY important because it is almost 100% fresh water (whereas the Antarctic ice cap is mostly seawater)…

So what happens if a freshwater ice cube the size of the Arctic ice cap is melted into the sea… first of all it will drop sea salinity to catastrophic levels for sea life and we will see mass extinctions of species for which the entire Earths ecosystem relies… and second of all the new cold water from the north will disrupt (and maybe even extinguish) the large sea currents (like the Gulf stream) which are responsible for distributing heat from the Equator to the north and the weather patterns that we see today would run amok devastating land life in a degree that would make it (if not impossible) extremely hard for humans to survive…

So the melting of the ice caps is DEFINITELY something to worry about…

2. What is causing it?
Well let’s start with a little math :-D
Humans release about 26.4Gt (Giga tons) of CO2 pr. year into the atmosphere… now that sounds damaging… but that’s not the whole story…

The oceans release about 330Gt of CO2 pr. year… and the animals and plant life (excluding humans) release about 400Gt of CO2 pr. year… (equals 730Gt of CO2 pr. year) so human emissions seams miniscule in comparison… but again that’s not the whole story…

You see the oceans also absorb 330Gt of CO2 pr. year (pretty much the same amount it releases)… and plant life absorbs 420Gt of CO2 pr. year (an overall reduction of CO2 by 20Gt pr. year)… so the actual ‘human CO2 footprint’ is about 26.4Gt-20Gt = 6.4Gt of CO2 pr. year…

It’s an increase but not a big one…

So what are the effects of a yearly increase of CO2 levels of 6.4Gt in the atmosphere… well the effects are debatable since CO2 is a VERY ineffective greenhouse gas… and it only comprises 3% of all the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere (the most effective being water vapor which comprises 70% of all the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere)… so a 0.00127% (6.4Gt) increase a year of one of the most ineffective greenhouse gasses which is in small amounts overall to begin with really doesn’t have much of an effect at all (it would take thousands of years to have a noticeable effect)… but that’s just my opinion… you do your own math…

But there is NO DOUBT that temperatures is rising and the subsequent effects of the ice caps melting will be catastrophic so we need to find the REAL reasons for the warming so we can see if this is a one way trend (only rising) making the effects catastrophic… or it is cyclical and therefore will start to cool again sometime in the future making the effects temporary and not so catastrophic…

So what are the real reasons for the global warming if not manmade CO2?
Well here I’m just speculating (since most if not all research has been on manmade CO2)… but I’ll give it a shot…

There are some interesting facts that have been left out of the discussion… first off it’s not only the Earth that is warming… at least Venus Mars and Jupiter (those are the planets we have measured but that doesn’t mean they are the only ones) are seeing global warming too (and even Mars is experiencing melting of its polar ice caps (one more thing to make manmade CO2 the culprit unlikely)… the problem seems to be solar system wide…

Well what is the one thing the entire solar system has in common? (I’ll give you a hint… it’s big and yellow and brings light every morning) :-D

You guessed right… the Sun…

And another fun fact in that regard is that the maximums of solar activity have risen slowly for about 60 years (about the same time temperatures started rising and not when we started increasing our CO2 footprint with the industrialization in the late 1800’dreds) where it will reach its absolute maximum in 2012 after which its maximums will fall again… so to me all the facts seem to point to the Sun being the culprit… but you are welcome to disagree :-D

So what can we do about it?
Well the short answer is nothing… sorry folks but if the Sun is the culprit there really isn’t anything we humans can do to change it but sit back and watch… sad but true… but here’s the good news… if the Sun is the culprit then temperatures will only rise until 2012 and then fall again (stopping the melting of the polar ice caps and increasing the refreezing of set ice caps)… and we will be alright since it was only in the hypothetical case of ALL (or most) of the polar ice caps melting that we would have problems…

So to summarize…
Yes the Earth is warming but it isn’t our fault and it we freeze again soon so we’ll be alright…

That being said… pollution in the form of burning of fossil fuels (creating CO2) has other and almost as far reaching consequences as global warming so switching to clean renewable energy sources is still a VERY good idea if we want to survive (but that’s a subject for an entirely different discussion)…

Now let the extremely ‘religious right’ of the green movement tear me a new one… :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/23/2009 05:26:48 AM EST

A thoughtful, well written post. (none / 0)
Global Warming will look like something we wish man could actually cause when the sun spots disappear and Earth moves into the next 100 year Maunder Minimum.

by Hugh Everett on 11/23/2009 07:46:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
:-D (none / 0)
why thank you...

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/23/2009 08:17:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You see, Star... (none / 0)
This is what rational people do - THINK and use logic, not run around with their heads on fire screaming "We're all gonna die!!! We're all gonna float away!!!!"

Very nicely put, Thothlike. Its nice to see someone who isnt an alarmist when it comes to this issue...

Its time to take the gravy train off of its tracks!

:)

by bobo1 on 11/23/2009 08:24:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
No, Bob, once again, you're wrong. (none / 0)
People like that misconstrue facts for their own political purposes so that people like you can feel good about avoiding their responsibility to pass a better world onto their children.

When someone argues that global warming is a good thing, we know that we've found a dangerous criminal.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 11/23/2009 11:14:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Just to clarify... (none / 0)
First off all I misconstrued NO facts... the facts are not in question only the interpretations...

Second I NEVER said global warming was a good thing... in fact I called it catastrophic several times and said...
So the melting of the ice caps is DEFINITELY something to worry about…

And thirdly this is NOT politics... it's science... and science is about finding the truth... it's NOT a vote... so it really doesn't matter if there is a consensus or not... what matters are the facts... (i.e. there was once a consensus that the Sun revolved around the Earth... then came this annoying little scientist Copernicus and said 'eeeeh no... the facts say the Earth revolves around the Sun'... and HE was right and the consensus was wrong... then the consensus was that the Universe was static... then came this annoying little scientist named Hubble and said 'eeeeh no... the facts say that the Universe is expanding' and HE was right and the consensus was wrong... then there was a consensus that the Universe was flat and then came this annoying little scientist named Einstein and said ‘eeeeh no… the Universe curves around masses creating Gravity’ and HE was right and the consensus was wrong… then the consensus was… etc. (and I could go on for hours… the point being that what the majority sais doesn’t matter in science ONLY the facts does)…

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/23/2009 02:41:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Perhaps you missed Ken's comment... (none / 0)
...which appears a couple of comments in the line above mine.  He implied that global warming is a good thing.  Also, he always misconstrues facts for political purposes.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 11/23/2009 07:26:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
ah... (none / 0)
Sorry... misunderstood you :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/23/2009 07:57:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
One other aspect of melting ice (none / 0)
The Arctic ice cap reflected a lot of light back into space.  When it disappears, most of that light will be absorbed into the ocean.

That is not a good thing.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 11/23/2009 11:06:57 AM EST

[ Parent ]
True... (none / 0)
But I NEVER said it was... In fact I called the melting of the polar ice caps catastrophic several times (and brought the facts to support such a claim)...

My point wasn't that it's not a bad thing if the polar ice caps melt... my point was that the facts doesn't support that it's manmade...

Just to clarify :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/23/2009 02:47:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sure, if you look at a subset of the facts... (none / 0)
...then that subset does not support the fact that humans have contributed -- at the very least -- significantly to the general warming of our planet.  You have to ignore, for instance, the billions upon billions of tons of all greenhouse gases -- not merely CO2 -- that we emit and their effects on the atmosphere, many of which are difficult for the oceans to absorb and which plants cannot transform into oxygen.

Yes, certainly:  if you ignore those things and their effects, then humans can be said to play no part at all in global warming.

Please tell us where all of the sulfur dioxide is coming from.  Most of it certainly is not coming from volcanoes.  And please find a natural source for chlorofluorocarbons.  Please explain how our atmosphere is full of all sorts of other even more exotic chemicals that -- as far as we know -- are manufactured only by humans.  Perhaps there is an invisible race of beings from the planet Epsilon Indi 4 hidden amongst us, with industries of their own that are churning out these gases?

Besides, that argument is null and void since we know that humans can significantly alter our climate by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

It appears that you lose on both sides of your argument.  Please, tell us again that humans play no part in global warming.  Maybe we'll take you seriously then.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 11/23/2009 07:40:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmm... (none / 0)
No there’s no invisible race (alien or otherwise)… that’s just stupid… please don’t insult my intelligence…

But let’s start with SO2 (sulfur dioxide):
SO2 is created by volcanoes (nature) and the burning of coal and petroleum (human)… and the emissions of humans FAR exceed that of nature to the point where (baring any mayor volcanic outbreaks) you can simple discard natures contribution…

But how you would think that SO2 is an greenhouse gas and therefore relevant in a climate discussion is beyond me… it’s a pollutant that causes acid rain and severe repertory problems for both humans and animals but it isn’t (and probably never will be) counted as a greenhouse gas by any self respecting scientist…

Then what about CFC (chlorofluorocarbons):
Well even though it isn’t a greenhouse gas either it still has a very serious indirectly effect on temperatures… so I’ll give you that one…

CFC (which was the main component in Freon used in refrigerators and aerosol cans back in the day) was proven in the 80’ies to have detrimental effects on the Earth’s ozone layer… and as a result of that it got banned and have been phased out since… so it’s not so much an issue any more and less and less an issue as time goes by…

The effect of the ozone layer:
The ozone layer resides in the lower portions of the stratosphere and absorbs 93-99% of the Suns high-frequency ultraviolet radiation (UV-B)… and if it disappears completely temperatures would rise and the 100% unfiltered UV-B radiation from the Sun would kill every living thing on the planet (making the temperature rise unimportant since there would be NO life left on the planet)… so VERY bad…

But like I said above… CFC (and all the other free radicals that have the same effect on the ozone layer as CFC) has been slowly faced out since 1987 (completely faced out in 1996… except for a few like N2O (Nitrous Oxide) that are in too small amounts to deplete the ozone layer… I still think they should be faced out too but that too is against the consensus)… but it’s not the cause of global warming and unless you prove to me how CO2 is (or give me the other ‘exotic’ gasses you think is responsible) I’m sticking with my claim… global warming is NOT manmade…

It appears that you lose on both sides of your argument.  Please, tell us again that humans play no part in global warming.  Maybe we'll take you seriously then.

Eeeh no I don't think I have lost ANY side of the argument so far... but I seriously doubt that you'll respect me anyway based on your condecending tone in your replies :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/23/2009 08:56:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Its hard not to be condecending (none / 0)
to someone who claims that human activity has nothing to do with climate change.

Lets argue another one next  maybe does gravity exist  its just a theory.

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 11/24/2009 01:48:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmm... (none / 0)
I think I can answer that one quickly...

Yes... Gravity exists...

Now try to be serious in the future...

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/25/2009 07:28:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Serious? (none / 0)
I dont think I can take anyone trying to argue that climate change has nothing to do with man  seriously.

Its the sun

LOL

You make me laugh

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 11/26/2009 11:03:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh, and about Mars,... (none / 0)
...I had presented the link in this forum some months ago, so I won't look it up again, but the ice cap melting on Mars was localized and affected only part of the southern ice cap.

But you're still avoiding one thing:  Regardless of whether or not humans cause our climate problems by continuing to dump unsustainable amounts of carbon-based gases into the atmosphere (not merely CO2, but more exotic gases, as well), we know that we can reverse the trends if we reduce our emissions.  We can restore our atmosphere, and we can get rich doing it.

How is that a bad thing?


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 11/23/2009 11:12:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
It is definitely a GOOD thing... :-D (none / 0)
And no I didn't avoid it... I said...

That being said… pollution in the form of burning of fossil fuels (creating CO2) has other and almost as far reaching consequences as global warming so switching to clean renewable energy sources is still a VERY good idea if we want to survive (but that’s a subject for an entirely different discussion)…

So reductions in CO2 by finding alternatives to fossil fuels is a VERY good thing... I'm definitely NOT saying otherwise... I'm just saying it's a good thing because of polution NOT global warming :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/23/2009 02:53:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Solar component disproven long ago. (none / 0)

on Earth, Mars and Venus and the other planets.

Direct measurements of solar output since 1978 show a steady rise and fall over the 11-year sunspot cycle, but no upwards or downward trend 

The Mars warming theory as postulated by a Mr Habibullo Abdussamatov is largely based on an projected increase  solar radiation. It should come as no surprise that his theory has largely been discredited due to his dismissal of the greenhouse effect(s)in relation to the Mars' and Earth's climate mechanism and over reliance on solar radiation increases not backed by quantifiable evidence. 

One should note, both sides agree that without "it" ( greenhouse particulates, gases etc.) the earth would be a frozen ice ball.

Later research by NASA Ames Research Centre has revealed that temperatures on Mars have increased slightly (over a 20-year period)) due to the action of Martian winds have helped the surface of Mars become darker, allowing it to absorb more of the sun's rays. In other words, a greenhouse particulate.

The ambient surface temperature of Venus is over 900 degrees Fahrenheit, due to greenhouse gas's and volcanism. The applicability of Venus' history to the Earth is a cautionary tale of greenhouse gases run amok.

 

Before me things create were none, save things Eternal, and eternal I endure.

All hope abandon ye who enter here.

by OccamsRazor on 11/23/2009 02:22:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Off course... (none / 0)
Direct measurements of solar output since 1978 show a steady rise and fall over the 11-year sunspot cycle, but no upwards or downwards trend

So you are denying the solar maximums high and low cycles (spaning 30-50 years)?

http://science.nasa.gov/hea dlines/y2006/10mar_stormwar ning.htm

The last high was i 1958 and next is in 2010-2012... correlating fine with the tempatures on Earth...

And about Mars... what you call 'over reliance on solar radiation' I call facts... but you are welcome to disagree... it's a free country and I could most definitely be wrong (have been in the past) but it is not so clearcut as 'the consensus' would have you believe :-D

One should note, both sides agree that without "it" ( greenhouse particulates, gases etc.) the earth would be a frozen ice ball.

No one said otherwise... the greenhouse gasses are VERY important... my point was that the small (0.00127%) increase pr. year of one of the most ineffective greenhouse gasses (CO2) which is in short surply (3%) to begin with might not have such a big effect...

Later research by NASA Ames Research Centre has revealed that temperatures on Mars have increased slightly (over a 20-year period))

Wait... didn't you just say a couple of paragraphs ago that temperatures on Mars wasn't increasing?

And you say it's because of winds on Mars making it darker... off course reflectivity has an effect as it does on Earth (reflection of the polar ice caps and cloud cover etc. - even more reason to not believe the warming is manmade CO2)...

The applicability of Venus' history to the Earth is a cautionary tale of greenhouse gases run amok

It most certainly is... when did I ever say greenhouse gasses weren't important?

So let me repeat myself... my point was that the small (0.00127%) increase pr. year of one of the most ineffective greenhouse gasses (CO2) which is in short surply (3%) to begin with might not have such a big effect...

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/23/2009 03:25:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Off topic (none / 0)

My comment clearly stated that solar output rose and fell over the 11 year sun spot cycles and there was no upward or downward trend. That means no appreciable rise or fall in solar output overall between cycles. Your reference simply restates that, hence the discussion of solar maximums and solar minimums within the sunspot cycles.

Mars is warming , I never claimed otherwise. The reason is not due to increased solar activity as you stated earlier.

 

Before me things create were none, save things Eternal, and eternal I endure.

All hope abandon ye who enter here.

by OccamsRazor on 11/23/2009 04:35:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmm... (none / 0)
Yes the Sun has a 11 year cycle of solar maximum and those maximums (as the NASA article states) has a 30-50 year cycle of higher and lower maximums... so yes there is an upward (and downward) trend depending where you are on the larger cycle...

No it's not JUST dependant on solar activities (as I said... temperature is also heavily affected by reflection... i.e. poler caps reflection and reflection by cloud cover etc.)... but it doesn't explain it all...

And if it were only Earth and Mars then maybe you COULD have a point but so far we have measured Venus Earth Mars and Jupiter and they are ALL presenting rises in temperatures correlating with the fall and rises of the solar maximums on the larger cycle of 30-50 years... or maybe you will postulate that the warming on Venus and Jupiter also is caused by less relection? and if not then what are the causes of those rises in temperature?

And you still need to explain how a yearly increase of 0.00127% of one of the weakest greenhouse gasses (CO2) that only comprises 3% of the atmosphere to begin with can have any noticable effect... and if you can't and don't think it's the Sun then what is (in your oppinion) the cause of solar system wide warming (if not the Sun or manmade CO2)?

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/23/2009 05:30:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
OccamsRazor Declares Definitively! (none / 0)
"There is no proven correlation between solar activity and the temperature of planet Earth. Our global temperature is increasing as a result of a 0.0000381% increase in total greenhouse gas."

by Hugh Everett on 11/24/2009 02:49:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Here we go again... (none / 0)
"We do know, from the historical record, from ice core data, that over the past 450,000 years, now extended to 670,000 years, that the CO2 concentrations have been in a narrow band between 200 and 300 parts per million, but never higher. We also know that within that range, changes in the CO2 concentration have been repeatedly correlated with, but not proven to be the root cause of, temperature changes that have repeatedly driven us into ice ages. We know that from human activities, within our lifetime, that CO2 is now 380 ppm and within the next 40 years will be 550 or higher. "

Dr. Nate Lewis - CalTech


It is counterintuitive that global warming could cause an Ice Age but here is what is thought to cause it.

The deep ocean currents provide a "heat pump" action which transfers heat from the equatorial regions to high latitudes thereby warming the higher latitudes, such as Northern Europe. There are 3 main "pumps" to this system, where dense highly saline water sinks to the floor of the ocean and provides the pumping action that draws the warmer less saline water from the equatorial regions towards the poles. Two of these "pumps" are located in the North Atlantic, one on the west coast of Greenland and one in the North Sea. Both of these pumps require the freezing action of sea ice to form the dense saline water that primes the pump. As the Greenland ice melts it decreases the salinity of the water and the lack of ice formation further decreases the power of the pumping action. If this pump stops it could drive Northern latitudes into an Ice Age in a matter of decades, perhaps much faster. Ice Age onsets, from the Ice core data show dramatic shifts towards Ice Ages with CO2 concentrations around 300 ppm.



Much is made of the fact that the number of powerful hurricanes in the Atlantic basin is an indicator of global warming. Normally the Gulf Stream would be taking this heat up to the artic regions, thereby warming Northern Europe. If the Deep Ocean conveyor action is slowing due to a decrease in artic sea ice formation, it is possible that this would lessen the cooling effect of the Gulf Stream on the Equatorial waters and the only heat dissipation mechanism left would be increased hurricane power and frequency.

by CptRich on 11/23/2009 10:09:00 AM EST

And before the Ice Age begins,... (none / 0)
...the ice melts.

If you live near the ocean, you should move inland for a while, but possibly for couple of thousand years.  Then, if you live north of, say, Arkansas, you should move south for a few more thousands of years.

This is the future that Republicans have left for our children.  The Republican Party must never again be allowed into power.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 11/23/2009 11:27:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes (none / 0)
The trigger event appears to be the melting of the artic ice. The time scale of thousands of years is way off, unfortunetly. The time scale from onset to full blown ice age appears more on the scale of a century.

by CptRich on 11/23/2009 12:42:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Here we go again. (none / 0)
Here's the real lesson you should be learning from Vostok ice core data.

Increases in global temperature cause increases in atmospheric CO2.

You might as well retire your favorite graph, because this pesky link will follow it everytime.

by Hugh Everett on 11/24/2009 03:02:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The REAL lesson is (none / 0)
You are trying to politicize something scientifc

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 11/26/2009 11:05:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Warmer Scientists exposed while struggling to defend the gravy train. | 65 comments (65 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: