Global Warm-mongering- Will the San Francisco Bay Area be be Flooded Due to Global Warming

I couldn't get the suspend date of Dec. 31, 2099 to work, so I just put in something that worked. Is it possible to put the correct suspend date in?

End of the century but only 10 years until question suspends. And exactly how many people that are here in 10 years do you expect to be here the end of the century?

Stupid question.

Where's your long term outlook (or sense of humor)?
It suspends in 10 years because in the question creation it wouldn't allow the year 2099.

Stupid comment.

Who's going to be around this site that would bet on this now if you get it extended?

I repeat...stupid question.

As for sense of humor, if you were going for there's no way this will ever be settled, then good job!! Jokes on us.

Hi , nice comments.

This one says "ocean expected to rise 5 feet along the coastline." Shouldn't it perpendicular to the coastline?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/12/MNTK16DEBF.DTL&feed=rss.bayarea

Please tell me you have an ocean front property located in California, driz.

Sorry about the low level of the comments. What can you expect from a dolt who does Batman questions.

As for the "5 feet", that's a quote FTA. I didn't know water could go perpendicular without a supporting structure. It would have to defy some natural law.

Sorry to disappoint you, C2r. I bought property that will become oceanfront.

According to the Pacific Institute, I will soon have ocean front property - in Colorado.

I'm building a pier next weekend here, in Iowa.
I can't wait....I just love salt-water taffy!!

Wow, 23,000 on 9 predictions. Some heavy hitters here. Thx.

I know that the new clarification in some way changes what the market was asking when initially created. If any users would like their funds refunded just flag the market.

Regards,
Ryan

I agree this is now an entirely different question: while the Pacific may well rise four feet by 2109, it's certainly not goign to do so by 2019.

On another note, why is it "fear-mongering" to warn folks of an impending calamity? If a passenger in your speeding car begs you to slow down before you crash and kill everyone inside, is that "fear mongering"? If your doctor tells you the 100 pounds you've put on in the past year from eating double cheeseburgers three times a day could very well lead to a heart attack, is that fear mongering? It seems to me that it's the view of some that anything which challenges them to honestly consider the ramifications of what they've done--that their past actions are likely going to lead, sooner or later, to a forced and unwanted change in their lifestyle--can be more easily ignored by simply pointing at it and sneering that it's "fear mongering". Doing so may help them sleep better at night, but it surely doesn't do anything about the problem. Ignorance is not a solution. Never has been; never will be...

But the question really is how dangerous is all this warming?
Global warming is real. But is it a real threat?

Or is this just another naturally occurring climatic change that does not require billions and billions of US aid, in order to avoid catastrophe?

Mars and Venus are getting hotter too. But don't let Obama know - he is already spending us into oblivion and using the recession for massive expansion of government.

I think this is a good topic for discussion but it needs to be revised for all the above stated reasons. Global warming is worth discussing, whether you believe it's happening or not. I'm thinking, living in the middle of the desert, how long before there's a beach nearby? I think I need to start polluting more to move this thing forward.

@sqlman

I characterized this as fear mongering because a quasi or non-scientific group, the Pacific Institute, who's nebulous vision and mission (see above) make its objectivity highly suspect, gets their paper treated as if it's a legitimate scientific study, on the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle. The print headline was, "Global Warning" subhead- "Rise in ocean's level threatens half a million people, study says." The online headline is currently, "Ocean expected to rise 5 feet along coastlines."

Considering that there is division in the scientific community about the dangers of global warming, and the lack of scientific credibility of the Pacific Institute, this article sounds like fear-mongering to me. It seems like the betters here on hubdub agreed, since they pushed my initial 75% no to 90%, even though the question was supposed to settle in 100 years.

@drz: while there may be 'division in the scientific community' about the dangers of global warming, that division is nowhere near the 50/50 split such a statement implies; among credible atmospheric scientists, the ratio is probably closer to 95/5 (believer/deniers)--and the former group is growing at a faster rate than the latter.

Remember, it was just a few years ago that deniers were claiming that global warming in any form simply didn't and doesn't exist. Faced with overhwhelming evidence to the contrary, most of those folks have come around...though now they're debating both the degree to which GW is man-made, and what its effects might be. I've no doubt that, faced with more overwhelming evidence, even those intellectual stragglers will eventually come around. I can only hope, though, it's not too late when that happens. I fear that it will be...

(FWIW, the reason bettors--including me--pushed your original 75% 'No' to near 90% is because of the change from a highly plausible one-hundred year to a not-a-chance-in-hell 10 years. Not even the wackiest person believs that's possible. And it may help to remember this little factoid: it'll take far less than a four-foot rise in sea levels to make the coastal homes of tens--perhaps hundreds--of millions of global citizens inhabitable.)

chatarra> It's all those little green Martian S.U.V.'s, don't ya know.

"Global warming is real. But is it a real threat?"

Since GW AND (before Erik mocks up) climate change are real, it is very important to know by when what will happen. Scientist are trying to reveal the severity of the threat it is, globally.

In the end it doesn't matter, "in order to avoid catastrophe", whether or not it is "naturally occurring climatic change". If there is going to be a catastrophe, humanity should be prepared and if possible should try to avoid it. If there is a chance to avoid the catastrophe by changing our way of living, I guess we should change it: for example, if this chance lays in the reduction of CO2 emissions, we should try to reduce these emissions.

"for example, if this chance lays in the reduction of CO2 emissions, we should try to reduce these emissions."

This would reduce CO2 emissions...
http://www.hubdub.com/m35435/Will_physician_assisted_suicide_be_legalised_in_states_other_than_Oregon_in_USA_in_09

You'd be surprised, but Switzerland authorizes active assistance in dying of patients, openly and legally, since 1941 and the Netherlands (permitted by the courts) since l984.

You see, over here in Europe we are ahead of time, now it's up to the US to follow our example :-)

@sqlman
First, the betting was done when the settlement was the end of the century, which was why I wanted to also get the suspension date moved to then. See comment 1, 2, & 11, which were pre-suspension and changes.

I don't think that 95% of scientists view global warming as very dangerous. In an article entitled "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change", according to http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html , which describes itself as " STATS is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization affiliated with the George Mason University. Our mission is to improve the quality of scientific and statistical information in public discourse and to act as a resource for journalists and policy makers on scientific issues and controversies. "

"Based on current trends, 41% of scientists believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years, compared to 13% who see relatively little danger. Another 44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous."

Also, " Local newspapers are rated as very reliable by 3% and somewhat reliable by 33% of scientists. Even the national press (New York Times, Wall St. Journal etc) is rated as very reliable by only 11%, although another 56% say it is at least somewhat reliable." Whether or not global warming is a huge threat, my guess is that only 3% of scientists polled view local newspapers as very reliable because they use techniques such as fear-mongering to sensationalize the story :-)

@kruijis oh the irony! Criminals are not allowed to be killed with the death penalty but good honest citizens in the hospital can be killed any moment! You guys are so ahead youve actually gone backward!
Also for this question, this is all based on a computer simulation that only weighs in a select few facts. It relies totally on the assumption that global warming is real and a lot of assumption goes into it. Anyone who thinks that global warming is a problem or even real should read michael crichtons book, state of fear. In fact many of these computer simulations are generally accurate should take a look at these links. They show that computer simulations guessed that these icebergs are going to shrink and they have actually gotten bigger! A shocking report on artic showed that the icebergs there were melting and huge chunks were dissapearing from the map! That was the start of foundings of many global warming groups trying to stop the dissapearance of iceburgs. However the truth was that the report was actually way off! They had forgotten 200k pounds of ice in a huge area of the artic.
Links for these claims:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/021809.html
http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm

@dragonfang: you need to get some new reading material, my friend; the bulk of your fellow Deniers have finally accepted the evidence and admitted that Global Warming is real, even if they've not yet come to the realization that it's being exacerbated by man's activities. IOW, pretending that GW isn't real is like claiming that Santa Claus is.

@drz: okay, so my off-the-cuff comments about the number of scientists who believe the threat from GW--whether manmade or not--was exaggerated; my apologies. But even the numbers you provide show that 84% of scientists believe that GW poses moderate to great danger, while just 13% see little; that's about a 6.5-to-1 ratio...still far from the 50/50 split implied by your "there is division in the scientific community about the dangers of global warming"comment.

FWIW, here's an article that just came out. The scientists are just fear-mongerers, I'm sure. If someone could please tell me what all these dirty, rotten, lying-through-their-teeth GW scientists have to gain by making up such dire warnings, I'm all ears: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090315155112.htm

:)

"If someone could please tell me what GW scientists have to gain by making up such dire warnings, I'm all ears:"
It is called:
ready - start the drum roll please

F-U-N-D-I-N-G

@Kruijs
Letting the criminally guilty stay alive, while the medically innocent can die.
And you call this progress?!?!?
Actually, I am all for Dr Kevorkian - He would make a good POTUS.

@Chatarra"letting criminally guilty stay alive, while the medically innocent can die" to late i jumped on that one already. My line is much more witty: "You guys are so ahead youve actually gone backwards"
@sqlman in the words of Fred the hobo " Its all a government conspiracy man! There trying to put fear in our brains so we are easier to control!" Thats right, a fellow beleiver. My educated collegue and i agree that global warming is fake. But in all seriousness, the evidence does show that the very basis of global warming theorys is based upon a error with a sattelite sensor. I think that probably about 90% of people in the world know that global warming is a load of crock and the other 10% probably funds those stupid documentrys and scientists.

@sqlman
That was a good informative article on a scientific website. I wouldn't consider that one fear-mongering. It was a scientific based study, done by seemingly legitimate researchers without an agenda, and it wasn't sensationalized. And though it warned of potential problems, it didn't scream out the NYC would be under water.

BTW, I'm an advocate for drastic reduction of fossil fuels, the main man made cause of greenhouse emissions, and becoming energy self-sufficient. One of the few areas where we should follow France's lead is in moving towards nuclear energy. Unfortunately, I don't know if it's politically possible in the US because of the "environmentalists" who won't allow it, and the whores in DC who are owned by the oil companies.

Nobody listens to the real climate change experts
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/4990704/Nobody-listens-to-the-real-climate-change-experts.html
The minds of world leaders are firmly shut to anything but the fantasies of the scaremongers, says Christopher Booker.

....


Nothing has more acutely demonstrated this than the reliance of the IPCC on computer models to predict what is going to happen to global temperatures over the next 100 years. On these predictions, that temperatures are likely to rise by up to 5.3C, all their other predictions and recommendations depend, yet nearly 10 years into the 21st century it is already painfully clear that the computer forecasts are going hopelessly astray. Far from rising with CO2, as the models are programmed to predict they should, the satellite-measured temperature curve has flattened out and then dropped. If the present trend were to continue, the world in 2100 would not in fact be hotter but 1.1C cooler than the 1979-1998 average.

Yet it is on this fundamental inability of the computer models to predict what has already happened that all else hangs. For two days in New York we heard distinguished experts, such as Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu, former director of the International Arctic Research Center, Dr Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Professor Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute, authoritatively (and often wittily) tear apart one piece of the scare orthodoxy after another.

Sea levels are not shooting up but only continuing their modest 3mm a year rise over the past 200 years. The vast Antarctic ice-sheet is not melting, except in one tiny corner, the Antarctic Peninsula. Tropical hurricane activity, far from increasing, is at its lowest level for 30 years. The best correlation for temperature fluctuations is not CO2 but the magnetic activity of the sun. (For an admirable summary of proceedings by the Australian paleoclimatologist Professor Bob Carter, Google "Heartland" and "Quadrant").

I clearly don't know as much about this as NN or Any of the scientists, believers or deniers. There are clearly people with vested interests on both sides. What I do understand from the reading that I've done is that global warming is incredibly difficult to measure. Clearly, we're having ferociously cold winters in some places, and nearly no winters at all in others (such as where I live). While I tend to believe the 85 percent of believers, I also know that there are patterns with in nature that we simply don't understand at all. When I was a kid, growing up on Biscayne Bay, we'd have years, for example, with a gazillian horshoe crabs. The next year there wouldn't be any, but there'd be flounder. There may be an inherent vanity in trying to apply computer models or any other kind of measurement to an entire planet, all its regions and all its life forms. You will forgive me for offering another gray scale answer. What it usually means is that I get attacked from both sides. Let's see if Diesel can come up with some figures showing that minorities are responsible.

Diesel cant but i can!
100% of minorities contribute to global warming,
100% of minorites consume up oxygen and spew out poisenous c02.
100% of minorites that buy gas are probably sending money to the middle east!

Yes Dragon, but you are funny and you don't seem to be a bigot. You're a Republican, which is bad enough, but you have a good sense of humor, which is more important to me than party affiliation.

well there is a difference between suicide and death sentence.
maybe you can figure out yourself what it is.

@drzinternet

"BTW, I'm an advocate for drastic reduction of fossil fuels, ..., and becoming energy self-sufficient."
my words

"moving towards nuclear energy"
it would be an alternative really if uranium wasn't fossil, and therefor endless, itself - besides the problem of waste disposal and security. I tend to prefer other energy sources, actually.

"the whores in DC who are owned by the oil companies."
wow. I don't trust my ears! who exactly do you mean? the ones who claim that climate change and global warming is just a mongering? or the ones who rushed to war in Iraq?

@ candelario # 29.

Refreshingly well written! I admire your prose.

"the whores in DC who are owned by the oil companies."
wow. I don't trust my ears! who exactly do you mean?

Most politicians are corrupt whores, Dems & Repubs, owned by the oil companies and the financial industry.
For a few billion a year in contributions/bribes, the financial industry is reaping trillions.

@drzinternet,
"Most politicians are corrupt whores" is actually very, very true.

@notablenotices: your dear Mr. Booker--the fellow who wrote the article you quoted--speaks of attending a conference in New York organized by the Heartland Institute. Now, we've already discussed the HI elsewhere, so I'll just remind you that that organization is funded in large part by ExxonMobil...a company with, clearly, a huge and vested stake in maintaining the heavy-polluting status quo. 'Nuff said...

Yes, perhaps "liberal media outlets" are ignoring the news as part of a concerted effort to sensationalize, or for political purposes. That's always a possibility, one supposes. Or then again, perhaps "nobody listens" to the shrill cries of the shrinking ranks of deniers because the pseudo-science and false statistics to which they cling so ferociously has been proven wrong time and time again.

@kruijs
Wow, common ground.

yes, disturbing :-)

Global Warming Team Stranded by Cold Weather
“We’re hungry, the cold is relentless, our sleeping bags are full of ice,” expedition leader Pen Hadow said in e-mailed statement. “Waiting is almost the worst part of an expedition as we’re in the lap of the weather gods.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509735,00.html

Fitting that he mentions the weather gods as his faith in GW is tested.

Fitting that you mention GW in this context, as it shows your fundamental misunderstanding of what Global Warming really is.

Global Warming Thwarted By Thinner Coats

EARTH - It appears that despite all the worry and debate, global warming has once and for all been defeated by the use of thinner jackets. Millions have feared the coming planet-wide disasters that global warming could set in motion, but now it seems the issue is moot thanks to the discovery of thinner coats by Dr. Tanner Lewis of St. Louis, MO. The doctor says the jackets can be worn whenever global warming causes winter-time temperatures to soar. In a press release Dr. Lewis said, "For example, in the month of January in Chicago, it should be between 10 and 20 degrees Fahrenheit. Should global warming cause the temperature to be 55 degrees, then people can simply wear one of my new patented thinner coats for men and women. They will then be quite comfortable."

Following the discovery, the Kyoto Protocol has been cancelled, and people around the globe have been told to pollute all they want. President Bush said Tuesday, "We can claim mission accomplished in the battle against global warming. Everyone who purchases the thinner jacket should feel free to drive giant gas-guzzling vehicles and befoul the planet as they see fit. I myself pissed in a nearby stream this morning."

http://www.bigfib.com/issue80/world4-en.html

^5 fingers !!

You got that from "Bigfib.com" fof? Why were you looking at Obamas website?

dragonfang - your slipping in your duties as secretary of defense. some liberal got access to foxnews.com. we can't have that happening again!

Im on it! Ill send all the fbi troops i can send! Which, since obama cut there funding by 25%, wont be many.

The 'Global Warming Three' are on thin ice

‘The only problem with a project to prove that Arctic ice is disappearing is the fact that it is actually getting thicker, says Christopher Booker.
What a wonderful parable of our time has been the expedition to the North Pole led by the explorer Pen Hadow. With two companions, he is measuring the thickness of the ice to show how fast it is “declining”. His expedition is one of a series of events designed to “raise awareness of the dangers of climate change” before December’s conference in Copenhagen, where the warmists hope to get a new treaty imposing much more drastic cuts on CO2 emissions.
With perfect timing, the setting out from Britain of the “Global Warming Three” last month was hampered by “an unusually heavy snowfall”. When they were airlifted to the start of their trek by a twin-engine Otter (one hopes a whole forest has been planted to offset its “carbon footprint”), they were startled to find how cold it was.
The idea is that the expedition should take regular radar fixes on the ice thickness, to be fed into a computer model in California run by Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, whose team, according to the BBC, “is well known for producing results that show much faster ice-loss than other modelling teams”. The professor predicts that summer ice could be completely gone as early as next year. It took the Watts Up With That? science blog to point out that there is little point in measuring ice thickness unless you do it several years running, and that, anyway, Arctic ice is being constantly monitored by US Army buoys. The latest reading given by a typical sensor shows that since last March the ice has thickened by “at least half a metre”.
“In most fields of science,” comments WUWT drily, “that is considered an 'increase’ rather than a 'decline’.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5028380/The-Global-Warming-Three-are-on-thin-ice.html

Don't miss to read the comments on the columnists opinion.

Erik:
What does the phrase "global, long term average" mean to you: "one sensor, two measurements without any lead"? Why can't you guys understand that "brrr, it's cold today thus global warming must be fake" just doesn't work? You're solely making fools of yourself.

I hope you fear mongers are happy... making up a story and foisting it off on kids to scare them with it! Read:

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/articles/2009/02/09/climate_change_takes_a_mental_toll/

Last year, an anxious, depressed 17-year-old boy was admitted to the psychiatric unit at the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne. He was refusing to drink water. Worried about drought related to climate change, the young man was convinced that if he drank, millions of people would die. The Australian doctors wrote the case up as the first known instance of "climate change delusion."

Robert Salo, the psychiatrist who runs the inpatient unit where the boy was treated, has now seen several more patients with psychosis or anxiety disorders focused on climate change, as well as children who are having nightmares about global-warming-related natural disasters.

[More at the link...]

I guess i was wrong. Global warming is a threat to humanity. Just not in the way they thought it would be :)

Kruijs -- I know where you're coming from and I agree with you about that tactic. Wow, it's cold. Global warming must be a lie. On the other hand, I'm just not sure because the whole debate has been polluted by Looney Toons Al Gore on the left and regulation-opposed industries represented by the right. I found this on the USEPA Web site and I figure it's good information. Let the debate roll.

Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

* Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
* The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
* An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).
* The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
* Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.

candelario, I guess you wanted to reply to Erik rather than me, didn't you?
at least, I agree with everything you say here - I doubt Erik will ;-)

Sorry, K. My point is that as a completely uninformed person when it comes to science, I'm not going to jump on either side of this issue. What HAS happened is that this important Theory has been politicized to the point that any real scientific advance on the matter is next to impossible. There are terrible allegations of industry paying scientists to say global warming is all a lie. On the other side, you have Al Gore screaming that the sky is falling. It's interesting. I was watching a clip today in which Bobby Kennedy was saying that by 1998 (thirty years in the future at that time) people in NY would be wearing gas masks to protect them from pollution. The question is whether Bobby was way the hell off, or if efforts to clean up the environment have made a diffence in large cities.

What I also know is that there are real environmental issues out there that don't excite the dogmatic tendencies of the left and the right. I'm thinking (as a native Floridian) of the sad and sorry shape of Everglades National Park as an example. There are probably people here who believe that federally protected land is some kind of infringement on their liberties. Surely, Timothy McVeigh would have felt that way. But they are part of our heritage. We've invested incredible sums of money in those lands and we should be investing more to protect and preserve them.

As a society, we should also be forcing -- not asking -- car manufacturers to produce cleaner running cars. Less exhaust in the air can only be a good thing.

i'm going out and start my hummer right now. not going any where..just gonna let it sit their and idle. then i'm gonna build a fire and burn all my recyclable trash cause driving it to the recycle center would pollute the air. then i'm gonna go feed some cows a large pot of beans.

BTW - i'm still thawing out from the "global cooling scare" of the 1970's.

(post 55 is a fine example of the dogma to which I referred)

cande>
It seems all of your “bullet” points reflect the first one:
“Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.”

As Nancy Pelosi uttered, “Well, the family planning services reduced costs, it reduced costs. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crisis now, and -- and part of it, what we do for children's health, education, and some of those elements that are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those -- one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, is -- will reduce cost to the state, and to the federal government.”

Heck, it’d reduce CO2 also!!

Thank God we have a wizard such as Speaker Pelosi to lead us!

Indeed diesel...Sounds all too familiar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko

(ignoring Erik, as it seems he is ignoring me, and his promise to answer)

candelario, I fully agree with you - even with the car manufacturers thing. I actually have no "extreme" position in this.
the problem though, is that there are still some idiots who do not understand that WASTING and POLLUTING is simply UNSOCIAL (I can hear them cry "it's my freedom", again, and "I do because I can").
and being UNSOCIAL equals being 1) an IDIOT and 2) an ....

Every now and again, the myth that "we shouldn't believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970's they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling" surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say "in the 1970's all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming" (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn't stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.

erik - GW has been debated a gazzillon times on HD. yawn!! i see if somebody don't accept it their fools and idiots. again..YAWN! we went a whole 4 or 5 days with no name calling. guess some things never change.

I don't see any name calling going on here.

Relax everyone, we are already passed the "point of no return" according to this article:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/environment-in-crisis-we-are-past-the-point-of-no-return-523192.html

Now lets find something else to worry about, since it is pointless to worry over something that cannot be undone!

Lol. That was a funny article notable. a quote from that article, "Before this century is over, billions of us will die" Thank you captain obvious! Im making a even more pessimist prediction, before the end of the century i can gaurentee you 7 billion people will die.

Here's more warm-mongering from those silly science-believin' folk:

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE5326HO20090404

:-)

And another one:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090402_seaice.html

What is it with scientists, always throwing out data with the obvious intent of scaring us?

:-)

I can't wait for the Arctic to be tropical again... it's such a waste that all that land is covered in ice... oh the tourist resorts we could build!

Cows With Gas: India's Contribution to Global Warming

"We're studying...tealeaves."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090411/wl_time/08599189064600

obama is gonna shoot polution in the air to block the sun's rays from heating the earth. problem is solved. now we can drive hummers and cows can fart and we can live happily there after. :O)

Ten points to dragon for picking out the dumbest quote I've seen this year in Any journalist publication.

@NN -- this is a really late response to the psychiatric issue you mentioned, it won't be nasty, but since I've been accused of being psycho by so many people, I think I'm an authority. I suspect that global warming scare mongers are not responsible for that young man's tragedy. People who are mentally unstable, particularly paranoid schizophrenics, frequently obsess over whatever bad news is flying around at the time and it becomes the focus of, but not the cause of their illness. During the cold war, it was the KGB is out to get me, or people killing themselves because of the threat of a nuclear war. Here in Mexico, it's "somebody's trying to kidnap me and steal my organs to sell them to gringos." I'm sure that in the days of cave dwellers like Diesel and his family, people got all freaked out that the buffalo they'd painted on the wall was going to come back for revenge. It's just a matter of social context-meets-nutjob.

I do admit that I find this conversation particularly interesting, by the way. I'm tempted to start a forum thread on it. You know, there are trends in "science" just as there are trends in religion, art, or anything else. I remember when the killer African bees were coming to get us. Not so long ago we were waiting for a new ice age. You know what I sometimes actually DO worry about? ----some stray asteroid-comet-other space object knocking the crap out of the planet and killing us all. But I suppose that's like worrying about the Apocalypse. If it happens, you're pretty much ground beef.

Headline- Antarctic Ice is Growing, Not Melting Away.
(Just depends where you look.)
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html

we are doomed. since congress (wisely imho) has showed luke warm feelings for obama's cap and trade plan, he's gonna do it through the executive power. the tree-huggers will sue anybody trying to build new roads, bulidings, malls..etc.

The US government is to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, having decided that it and five other greenhouse gases may endanger human health and well-being.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8004975.stm

'Green initiative' by Charles will cost £80,000 and leave 53-ton carbon footprint as he flies in 12-seat private jet

Clarence House aides stress that the trip is at the request of the Government to promote its climate change policies.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1173588/Green-initiative-Charles-cost-80-000-leave-53-ton-carbon-footprint-flies-12-seat-private-jet.html#

"Earth's temperature 8th-warmest on record so far in 2009...Arctic sea ice coverage was at its sixth-lowest since satellite records began in 1979" http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2009-04-16-march-temperatures-emissions-reduction-study_N.htm

Wake up and smell the CO2, my dis-believing brethren, and come hug this redwood with me; there's still lots of room... :-)

CO2's bad for you....The EPA says so.

'North Pole Sea Ice twice as thick as expected'

The research aircraft “Polar 5” today concluded its Arctic expedition in Canada. During the flight, researchers measured the current ice thickness at the North Pole and in areas that have never before been surveyed. The result: The sea-ice in the surveyed areas is apparently thicker than scientists had suspected.

Normally, newly formed ice measures some two meters in thickness after two years. “Here, we measured ice thickness up to four meters,” said a spokesperson for Bremerhaven’s Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research. At present, this result contradicts the warming of the sea water, according to the scientists.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10662

Wake up and smell the bar-b-q, my dis-believing brethren, and come burn this redwood with me; there's still lots of room... :-)

Or maybe it's that damn metric system that has everyone confused...

Folks shouldn't only read (and quote from) self-described conservative media sources; I'm afraid they're being shut out of many well-established scientific truths.

(4/6/2009): "Arctic sea ice younger, thinner as melt season begins"(National Snow and Ice Data Center)

(4/29/2009): "Huge ice chunks break away from Antarctic shelf" (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jyIAsnRMY5tmZ1hCc1d1ayZ2Fk_wD97SA0700)

I could produce a thousand--ten thousand--more, but I doubt any deniers would bother to read them; their bitter reality would, I suppose, cause too much discomfort to those wrapped in their little cocoons of ostrich-ism. :-)

the metric system confuses?

LOL

"Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

About Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner.

Axel-Morner claims to be an expert in "dowsing," the practice of finding water, metals, gemstones etc. through the use of a Y-shaped twig. Axel-Morner's attempt to prove his dowsing abilities is chronicled by James Randi, the well-known myth buster, who has offered the longstanding One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge.

Axel-Morner is a retired professor from the University of Stockholm. According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Axel-Morner has published 65+ original research papers in peer-reviewed journals, mainly in the area of paleoseismicity, in other words the study of historical earthquake activity.

Listed as an "allied expert" for a Canadian group called the "Natural Resource Stewardship Project," (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose it's funding sources. The NRSP is led by executive director Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball. An Oct. 16, 2006 CanWest Global news article on who funds the NRSP, it states that "a confidentiality agreement doesn't allow him [Tom Harris] to say whether energy companies are funding his group."

Two of the three directors on the board of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project are registered energy industry lobbyists and senior executives of the High Park Advocacy Group, a Toronto-based lobby firm that specializes in “energy, environment and ethics.”

http://www.desmogblog.com/nils-axel-morner

Mörner is also a speaker for "The Cooler Heads Coalition", financed and operated by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is a non-profit libertarian think tank which funders include the Scaife Foundations, Exxon Mobil the Ford Motor Company Fund, Pfizer, and the Earhart Foundation.

http://www.globalwarming.org/?s=Why+the+Alarmist+View+is+Wrong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooler_Heads_Coalition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_Enterprise_Institute

And he is a impostor:
http://www.edf.org/documents/3868_morner_exposed.pdf

this is a silly question everybody knows there are too many hill in san francisco...now new york...that's a different matter

And don't forget: as has been mentioned here before, the columnist who wrote that article--Christopher Booker--is heavily involved and affiliated with the Heartland Institute, that "think tank" with the cozy name funded by both Big Tobacco and Big Oil. (He's also the presenter of Remember the Poor: A Christian Perspective on Energy Rationing.) Hardly an unbiased scientific source, I'd say... :-)

hey don't knock water witch's. i don't know about metals, gem stones, etc but i've seen people find water with a Y shaped stick. in fact they get paid for doing it in my neck of the woods. the guy walks around with the stick, tells you where to drill. if they don't get a legit well you don't pay. i'll ask the guy if i can give his name and number out. he's got a 99% accurate rate for finding water. better yet if your having trouble finding water i'll charge you for the info. :O)

@dieseldog
LOL

Associated Press Writer H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Writer - Fri May 8, 5:43 pm ET

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration, which promised a sharp break from the Bush White House on global warming, declared Friday it would stick with a Bush-era policy against expanding protection for climate-threatened polar bears and ruled out a broad new attack on greenhouse gases.

Hope 'n Change

FYI

My "Greendex" is 50 (yes, honestly answered all questions).

With this index score, my environmental awareness is worse than the German average.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/greendex/calculator.html

Let me know yours

Answering honestly, I 'greened' out at 61. There are a couple of areas in which I could be doing better, of course... :-)

I'm a 64 ... i can't see the interactive map tho - i would have thought Australia got a pretty high average anyway?

@tisha - I'm a 51, I fit into Australia not USA.

Here's a piece of news all Deniers can cling to as a sign that AGW is a farce: a team of researchers now says a collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet would raise global sea levels by 'only' 10 feet, instead of the 20 they'd earlier predicted.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30749326/

:-)

Talk about conflicting news: #1) \"Survey: Arctic may hold twice the oil previously found there\" (http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/05/28/arctic.oil.gas.reserves/index.html) #2) \"Report: Climate change crisis \'catastrophic\'\" (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/05/29/annan.climate.change.human/index.html)\\r
\\n\\r
\\nHmmm...well, 300,000 dead Africans or Indians a year likely seems like a small price to pay to keep the tanker on your Hummer full, eh? :-|

Only 52, Green Bay's high temperature sets a record

Press-Gazette
June 7, 2009

If it seemed cold to you in Green Bay on Saturday, it was.

The high temperature for the day, reached at 9:50 a.m., was 52. That set a record for the lowest high temperature for June 6, according to the National Weather Service office in Ashwaubenon.

The old mark was 53, set in 1943.

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090607/GPG0101/906070685/1207/GPG01/Only+52++Green+Bay+s+high+temperature+sets+a+record

Snow falls in western ND, in June

Jun 6 2009 2:49PM
Associated Press

Bismarck, N.D. (AP) Snow has fallen in Dickinson in June, the first time in nearly 60 years the city has seen snow past May.

http://www.kxmb.com/News/Local/386720.asp

erik - kxmb and the greenbay gazette proablly have ads from big oil in them. they can't be reporting the truth. :O)

Funny stuff. But using single instances of extreme weather as 'proof' that climate change is or is not happening really only proves one of two things: that the person doing so is woefully ignorant of the difference between climate and weather, or the person doing so is aware of the difference, but is intentionally trying to manipulate an audience because actual facts and figures don't support his/her position. I'm not sure which dynamic is at play here... :-)

Look, I can do it too:

Heat wave tightens grip

New Delhi, Jun 8 (PTI) There was no let up in the heat wave buffeting large tracts of the Northern belt as mercury climbed further at many places today with Jhansi in Uttar Pradesh baking at 45.5 degree celsius. Temperatures topped the 43-degree mark at a number of places in Rajasthan, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh as denizens preferred to stay indoors to avoid a merciless sun.

Uttar Pradesh was in the grip of searing heat with Jhansi recording a high of 45.5 degree celsius as hot winds blew across the state to the discomfiture of the people.

The maximum in holy city Varanasi peaked at 43.6 degrees while it touched 42 degrees in state capital Lucknow.

In the desert state of Rajasthan, Ganganagar and Churu sizzled at 44.4 and 44 degrees respectively as Bikaner endured another hot day with a high of 43 degrees.

Kota, Jaisalmer and Pink City Jaipur also faced the wrath of the hot weather registering highs of 42.9, 42.8 and 42.7 degree celsius respectively.

Holy city Amritsar was the hottest zone in Punjab reeling at 44.2 degrees, four notches above normal, as Ludhiana sweltered at 42.6 degrees.

No sql....you can’t “do it, too.”

Nowhere in your post is there a reference to record high temperatures.

Nowhere is there any suggestion of temperatures rising above the norm.

But I digress.
Haven’t all of your ‘sky is falling’ attributes been that of a compilation of , and I quote, “single instances of extreme weather as 'proof' that climate change is happening?”

Indeed, this person is aware of the difference between climate and weather, and is intentionally trying educate an audience to the differences of opinion among scientists because actual figures don't support some peoples’ positions that they present as fact.

I'm quite sure what dynamic is at play here... :-)

Woops - My apologies.

I see that Holy city Amritsa was 4 degrees above normal.

Better call Algore.

Well, actually, there are a number of reports stating that the recent heat waves in India and Australia are a sign of global climate change, but I avoided presenting them with my intial post. I'll rectify that now: try http://nation.ittefaq.com/issues/2009/06/08/news0532.htm or http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE50S0OA20090129. Now, I would like to see a single credible scientist--and by that I mean one whose career hasn't been spent as a non-published corporate 'science spokesperson' for Exxon/Mobil--proclaiming that the winter-like anomalies you presented were sure proof that the planet is not warming after all.

(I have never--here nor anywhere else--attempted to take a single statistic or two and used it to 'prove' that climate change/global warming is upon us. To do so is disingenuous.)

At any rate, there really are no "differences of opinion" among credible climatologists, meteorologists, and other atmospheric scientists, etc., as to whether climate change is in the works. Yes, just as with the theory of evolution, there are anomalies that don't fit nicely into the data. But just as the existence of the duck-billed platypus doesn't disprove the theory of evolution, a record cold snap in a handful of areas doesn't come close to disproving the theory of manmade climate change...especially when the vast preponderance of the evidence shows that it's happening.

An Inconvenitent Solar Cycle for alGore
June 10, 2009

Washington DC - "If our prediction is correct, Solar Cycle 24 will have a peak sunspot number of 90, the lowest of any cycle since 1928 when Solar Cycle 16 peaked at 78," panel chairman Doug Biesecker of the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center said.

Less activity on the Sun results in Global Cooling and more activity results in Global Warming.

alGore's team of gifted science fiction writer's will release a report next week attributing solar cycle activity to Soccer Mom's SUV (SMS) and Livestock Farts (LF).

Does anyone know where I can get some cheap carbon footprints?

Since the Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency could declare carbon dioxide as a pollutant, the agency was ultimately given the authority to regulate ...cow farts, too.

To show you how ridiculous this is getting, the EPA has got the proposed regulation imposing a cow fart tax of $175 a year on every head of dairy cattle in the United States and $80 for beef cattle, $20 per head of hogs. I don’t know if we’re supposed to develop the technology to strap a catalytic converter on the back of a cow.

According to the Huffington Post, this new regulation, if imposed, could cost the average cattle ranch $30,000 to $40,000 a year. Sooner or later, it will trickle down to consumers.

Is this new “cow fart tax” the right way to limit America’s greenhouse emissions or is it just another way the government can get more money? Is the fear of global warming causing government agencies to go overboard? What should the EPA really be focusing on when it comes to preventing global warming?

Hope ‘n Change

http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/talk-of-the-day/talk-of-the-day/2009/06/is-taxing-cow-flatulence-the-right-way-to-prevent-global-warming/

Obama administration ‘shoots for the moon’ with no regard for carbon footprints or it’s effect in regard to global warming:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-moon-launch19-2009jun19,0,4591157.story

http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11284:global-warming-farce&catid=149:tony-elliott&Itemid=122

Hope ‘n Change

“It's (climate change) a tough sell. And probably you have to find ways to exaggerate the threat.” - Nobel Prize-winning economist Thomas Schelling, July 14 2009
http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/07/an_interview_with_thomas_schelling_part_two.php

Global Warming Will Bring Violent Storms And Tornadoes, NASA Predicts
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070830105911.htm

Number of Iowa tornadoes decline
Associated Press - July 24, 2009
http://www.ktiv.com/Global/story.asp?S=10784842

So if you get your serious atmospheric science from an economist, do you in turn get financial advice from, say the local TV weathergirl?

Anyway: "Climate Change Calculus: Why It's Even Worse Than We Feared"
http://www.newsweek.com/id/208164

Global Warming Will Bring Violent Storms And Tornadoes, NASA Predicts

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070830105911.htm



Number of Iowa tornadoes decline - Associated Press, July 24, 2009

http://www.ktiv.com/Global/story.asp?S=10784842

yea obamaweek newsweek is a non-biased serious atmospheric science source. funny how all their models were wrong. gee wonder which why people are skeptic. one "method" they used was how fast a ship made it to point A. hmmm wonder if he got lucky and found a clear path that others before him didn't. maybe he had better technology to find a better path....nah he was using a flashlight and a map drawin on a napkin. :O)

The science is in: global warming will not be catastrophic says SPPI
http://news.yourfindit.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=110928&ret=AccountSummary.aspx
SPPI’s authoritative Monthly CO2 Report for July 2009 announces the publication of a major peer-reviewed paper by Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, demonstrating by direct measurement that outgoing long-wave radiation is escaping to space far faster than the UN predicts, and proving that the UN has exaggerated global warming 6-fold.

Lindzen’s paper on outgoing long-wave radiation shows that the “global warming” scare is over. Thanks to recent peer-reviewed papers that have not been mentioned in the mainstream news media, we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we now why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate.

This month’s CO2 Report provides the latest real-world scientific data about the climate -

The IPCC assumes CO2 concentration will reach 836 ppmv by 2100, but, for almost eight years, CO2 concentration has headed straight for only 570 ppmv by 2100. This alone halves all of the IPCC’s temperature projections.

Since 1980 temperature has risen at only 2.5 °F (1.5 °C)/century, not the 7 F° (3.9 C°) the IPCC imagines.

Sea level rose just 8 inches in the 20th century and has been rising at just 1 ft/century since 1993. Sea level has scarcely risen since 2006. Also, Pacific atolls are not being drowned by the sea, as some have suggested.

Arctic sea-ice extent is about the same as it has been at this time of year in the past decade. In the Antarctic, sea ice extent - on a 30-year rising trend - reached a record high in 2007. Global sea ice extent shows little trend for 30 years.

Hurricane and tropical-cyclone activity is at its lowest since satellite measurement began.

Solar activity has declined again, after a large sunspot earlier in the month. The Sun is still very quiet.

The (very few) benefits and the (very large) costs of the Waxman/Markey Bill are illustrated. The Bill would cost trillions and achieve nothing.
[More at the link...]

Good find NN. It's good to see scientific peer reviewed articles rather than hysterical indoctrination and Al Gorism.

Oh, yes, please do quote Lindzen; while more credible than most deniers, he's still the guy who has billed oil and coal companies up to $2500 per day for consultation, and who believes there's no medically-credible link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Yeah, I trust him. ;-)

I'm sure you know the article from which you quoted is full of unsubstantiated and/or false representations of scientific fact, or completely inane comments. Right? I can pick them apart one by one; many are old chestnuts that have been disproven by mainstream science.

Tell you what: Lindzen and the rest of the Church of the Deniers can build a huge spaceship, whisk themselves off to some other planet, make a home there, and then continue their experiments to determine just how much crap they can put in the air that everyone breathes. Let us know how it works for you...

(Oh, yeah, the SPPI: that's the group of global warming deniers that steadfastly refuses to reveal the source of its funding. Wow. Well, let me take a big wild guess...)

Weather supercomputer used to predict climate change is one of Britain's worst polluters

‘The Met Office has caused a storm of controversy after it was revealed their £30million supercomputer designed to predict climate change is one of Britain's worst polluters...

The machine was hailed as the 'future of weather prediction' with the ability to produce more accurate forecasts and produce climate change modelling.

However the Met Office's HQ has now been named as one of the worst buildings in Britain for pollution - responsible for more than 12,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year.
It says 75 per cent of its carbon footprint is produced by the super computer meaning the machine is officially one of the country's least green machines.

Green campaigners say it is 'ironic' that a computer designed to help stave-off climate change is responsible for such high levels of pollution...

He (Met Office spokesman Barry Grommett) said: “We recognise that it is big but it is also necessary...”

It is the second time the Met Office has been criticised this year - after the machine famously helped predict a "BBQ summer" which turned out to be another wash-out.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1209430/Weather-supercomputer-used-predict-climate-change-Britains-worst-polluters.html

@Erik:

That is hilarious!

Global Warmongering is causing...

Preshrunk Wool
http://countdowntodoom.com/blog/?p=12

Here's an article that all you deniers likely won't bother reading because it's full of, you know, real science (as opposed to the easily-disproven mumbo-jumbo put out by a spokesperson for the "International Institute Of Oil Company Profit Is All That Matters" that you guys usually read):

"WASHINGTON - The Arctic is warmer than it's been in 2,000 years, according to a new study, even though it should be cooling because of changes in the Earth's orbit that cause the region to get less direct sunlight. The most recent 10-year interval, 1999-2008, was the warmest of the last 2,000 years in the Arctic, according to the researchers led by Darrell Kaufman, a professor of geology and environmental science at Northern Arizona University." MORE: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32675876/ns/us_news-environment/

;-)

NASA data: Greenland, Antarctic ice melt worsening

New satellite information shows that ice sheets in Greenland and western Antarctica continue to shrink faster than scientists thought and in some places are already in runaway melt mode.

British scientists for the first time calculated changes in the height of the vulnerable but massive ice sheets and found them especially worse at their edges. That's where warmer water eats away from below. In some parts of Antarctica, ice sheets have been losing 30 feet a year in thickness since 2003, according to a paper published online Thursday in the journal Nature.

Some of those areas are about a mile thick, so they've still got plenty of ice to burn through. But the drop in thickness is speeding up. In parts of Antarctica, the yearly rate of thinning from 2003 to 2007 is 50 percent higher than it was from 1995 to 2003.

These new measurements, based on 50 million laser readings from a NASA satellite, confirm what some of the more pessimistic scientists thought: The melting along the crucial edges of the two major ice sheets is accelerating and is in a self-feeding loop. The more the ice melts, the more water surrounds and eats away at the remaining ice.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gOlWiujpOldgk2YCQMLpBQStXRMAD9AT58IG0

Extensive dynamic thinning on the margins of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets

Many glaciers along the margins of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are accelerating and, for this reason, contribute increasingly to global sea-level rise. Globally, ice losses contribute approx 1.8 mm yr-1, but this could increase if the retreat of ice shelves and tidewater glaciers further enhances the loss of grounded ice or initiates the large-scale collapse of vulnerable parts of the ice sheets.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature08471.html

‘Sugar beets shivering in Montana’
Billings(AP) - Oct. 9, 2009

‘No Kidding: Snow on Sunday!’
WMAQ (Chicago) Oct. 8, 2009

Erik: local weather--which you've alluded to yet again--is to overall climate as the 24-hour flu is to your normal health. Here's NASA to explain better:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

Read it. Know it. Live it... ;-)

What if there were a way of changing the climate so that the weather was warmer all over the world?

I realize this is probably unrealistic, but if it could be done, it would be a great way to save energy.

Not unrealistic at all; there already is "a way of changing the climate so that the weather [is] warmer all over the world": it's called "global warming", and the Big Energy industry figured out how to do it decades ago. Now, that doesn't mean the weather will always be warmer in every location from one year to the next, but the overall trend is certainly headed that way...or, at least, credible scientists say so.

funny idea. seeing how many buildings have airco nowadays already.

the evil BBC thats in the oil companies back pocket

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

the article goes on to give the GW believers their say. ever notice how often these models are wrong? how can anybody have faith in them is beyond me.

"ever notice how often these models are wrong?"

ever noticed how these are the only models we can base our predictions on, how much effort is put into it, and how often they actually are correct, and that they are corrected whenever new findings arise?

"how can anybody have faith in them"
you rely on your own sense, I guess, which is perhaps faaaar more precise. however it will end just where your backyard ends.

"the article goes on to give the GW believers their say."
the common blabla, you might say. but, hm, did you notice that you take the statement you quote out of context?

So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.

The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.

In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models.

What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.

[T]his cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.


So, the argument that the models "did not forecast it" is actually ... duh! .... wrong.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

It should actually be even more alarming:

2007 Second Warmest Year Despite Cooling Climate Conditions
Although 2007 did not post a new record high, the year stands out as being extremely warm despite several natural factors that usually cool the planet. El Niño conditions in the southern Pacific tend to increase the global average temperature, and yet the second half of 2007 saw the opposite—a La Niña pattern that would usually depress global temperature.

This is in stark contrast to conditions in 1998, now the third warmest year on record, when temperatures were boosted around 0.2 degrees Celsius by the strongest El Niño of the century. In addition to the moderate La Niña in 2007, solar intensity in 2007 was slightly lower than average because the year was a minimum in the 11-year solar sunspot cycle. The combination of these factors would normally produce cooler temperatures, yet 2007 was still one of the warmest years in human history. According to the Earth Policy Institute, this strongly suggests that the warming effect of increased greenhouse gas concentrations is now dwarfing other influences on the Earth’s climate.

http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarmingandweather/a/2007_temp.htm

So, the argument that the models "did not forecast it" is actually ... duh! .... wrong. - now you interput what other people say from the BBC article. they say their models were wrong, but you say they wasn't..duh! you need to re-read the article. nothing was taken out of context! well till you replyed to the post.

According to the Earth Policy Institute, this strongly suggests that the warming effect of increased greenhouse gas - again a theory based on models that are constanly wrong. why don't they say proves that the warming effect of increased greenhouse gas? because they can't prove it. if you wanna live your life based on models that are constantly wrong feel free to do so.

looks like HD didn't consider it taken out of context either. must just be your interpretation thats out of context.

http://www.hubdub.com/m20988/When_will_Manmade_Global_Climate_Change_next_be_disputed_by_a_major_media_source

dieseldog,

I'm tired of your argumentation. I'll quote some blog with standard answers to your denier hypothesis.

"There is no "proof" in science, that is a property of mathematics. In science, one must look at the balance of evidence and formulate theories that can explain this evidence. Where possible scientists make predictions and design experiments to confirm, modify or contradict their theories and must modify these theories as new information comes in."

"At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and the NASA GISS analysis. In fact, it was not just a record year, it blew away the previous record by .2oC. (That previous record went all the way back to 1997, by the way!) According to NASA, it was elevated far above the trend line because 1998 was the year of the strongest El Nino of the century. Choosing that year as a starting point is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates why it is necessary to remove the very chaotic year to year variability that exists (aka: weather) by smoothing out the data. Now this is an excusable mistake for average folks who do not need the rigors of statistical analysis in their day jobs, but any scientist in pretty much any field knows that you can not extract any meaningful information about trends in noisy data from single-year end points. This is why it is hard to hear a scientist make this argument and still believe that they are a voice of integrity in this debate, rather it appears more to be an abuse of the trust people would like to place in them as scientists. Bob Carter is such a voice and was the first to trot out this argument in an article in the Daily Telegraph. Since then it has echoed far and wide and has been used by Richard Lindzen as well as a host of sceptic websites."

you showed lack of your understanding of scientific/academic language before, dieseldog, thus I'm not surprised that you bring up this weak, wrong argument here.

rotflol @ -----> you showed lack of your understanding of scientific/academic language before, dieseldog, thus I'm not surprised that you bring up this weak, wrong argument here.

for such a great scientist as yourself you still don't get it. i guess you scientist don't like facts.

FACT they said their models were wrong!

FACT you said that was taken out of context!

FACT a question was settled on the article!

FACT GW was disputed by a MSM source!

FACT you was wrong again in your never ending job of interputating what other people say.

anybody who's been on HD for awhile knows i don't believe in GW. all i did was provide info that wasn't backed by big oil. then you come along saying i posted something out of context. i DID no such thing, and PROVED with facts that i didn't. you can cry and deny all you want, it still don't change the facts! i just noticed this is past my 50 comments deal. unless you can provide facts to dispute the ones above i'll let you continue to ramble and show your lack of understanding of the english language.

- I agree that the article disputes GW in it's headline but it concludes "It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up."
So, does that mean that the author really disputes GW? please read carefully "about what is causing global warming" - not what "about whether global warming is real". I would say: NO, he doesn't dispute GW (or more correct: Climate Change), but he says that the causes aren't clear.

- "that wasn't backed by big oil" - I don't know why the author wrote the article right now. it contains nothing new. please also read the comments to the article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/10/a-few-points-about-my-article.shtml#comments

- "interputating" - what is that? sorry, for my lack of understanding of the English language.

- "past my 50 comments deal" - you notice this while writing comment 128 - wow, great. someone yelled "arbitrary" in the last few weeks?

- "PROVED with facts that i didn't" - you said someone else made the same conclusion. in which way is that proving a fact that my allegation is wrong?

- "i don't believe in GW" - hey, it isn't a religion. it is not about believing.

- "you can cry and deny all you want" - actually, you are the one who's denying

*rambling in dieseldogs' grace*

"LONDON, England (CNN) -- New data released Thursday suggests that the Arctic Ocean will be 'largely ice free' during summer within a decade...current climate models developed by scientists may not be extreme enough"

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/15/climate.arctic.sea.ice.melt/index.html

Oh, those pesky liberals at it again, always stepping on my God-given right to light my house up like the Vegas strip and drive my Hummer all over the wilderness crushing spotted owls and scaring the poor little caribou...

We don't crush spotted owls...it messes up the fillets.

I just q'd one yesterday. Tasty.
But you certainly don't want to crush them...All those bone fragments and such.

"PROVED with facts that i didn't" - you said someone else made the same conclusion. in which way is that proving a fact that my allegation is wrong? - your allegation was i posted something out of context. as proved, i did no such thing.


from your blog source

formulate theories, make predictions and design experiments, must modify these theories as new information comes in

so theories, experiments, and modify as new info comes in is what your basing your believe on? the reasoning to give the govt more control over your life, and raise your taxes? i bet your govt loves folks like you. i wish i could modify my answers on every test i ever took, after the test was graded. oh wait that would be plain ridiculous to allow such behavior. let me guess if the earths temperature don't rise as some predict in the next 20 yrs, it won't be because they was wrong, it will be because they need more time to modify their experiments/theories. as mike baker would say...WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!

but any scientist in pretty much any field knows that you can not extract any meaningful information about trends in noisy data from single-year end points - so what about 11 year end points? they admit they was wrong the last 11 years, then want folks to wait another [insert any number] years and see what happens. well golly gee i can make predictions that are true using that forumla.

"LONDON, England (CNN) -- New data released Thursday suggests that the Arctic Ocean will be 'largely ice free' during summer within a decade...current climate models developed by scientists may not be extreme enough"

so if the arctic ocean is not 'largely ice free' during summer within a decade what will be the excuse?

Oh, those pesky liberals at it again, always stepping on my God-given right to light my house up like the Vegas strip and drive my Hummer all over the wilderness crushing spotted owls and scaring the poor little caribou i couldn't have said it better! oh BTW you forgot the freedom to feed our cows beans. :O)

greenhouse gas problem solved

Heating plant in Sweden burning rabbits killed in city parks to warm homes

http://www.nydailynews.com/real_estate/2009/10/14/2009-10-14_heating_plant_in_sweden_burning_rabbits_killed_in_city_parks_to_warm_homes.html

its only a matter of time...

@132

thanks, dieseldog, you just "PROVED with facts" that you don't know how scientific hypothesis are written. it quite confirms anything I've said about your lack of understanding before.

let me explain:
"so theories, experiments, and modify as new info comes in is what your basing your believe on"
yes, of course. because you must change your models to adapt new findings. I can't understand your refusal here. and yes, I rely on scientific data if it comes to what I think what today's world societies, as represented by their governments, have to take responsibility for. you, it seems, merely think that you can rely on your own sense, which you consider to be faaaar more precise obviously. however it will end just where your backyard ends. as I said before.

this "WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!" as you call it, is what mankind - including the American society - is able to do nowadays. I agree that it is not perfect - but's this "LOAD OF CRAP!" is the best we have.

"to wait another [insert any number] years"
this is just what scientifically is wrong. seems you've tried to read comment #127 but failed to actually understand what it means: while using noisy data, you cannot take one single point. you must compare with (floating) averages. example? this is the grafik the number 1998 is taken from: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/images/policymakers/global.gif
you see the blue line in it? that's a floating average. you should use that. what do you think the conclusion would be if we'd used, let's say, the year 2000 instead?
just to remind you: the complete top 10 warmest years measured _all_ lay in the period since 1997, except for the year 2000.

here is another standard answer to your argument:

"Of course, given the absence of a few duplicate planets and some really large time machines, how can we hope to test a 100 year temperature projection today? Well, we can't, but does this mean that the models can not be validated without waiting 100 years? I don't thinks so.

The climate is a very complex system and our observations of it are by no means complete, even insofar as what is going on today. This is a shortcoming we need to work hard to correct, but it is also an opportunity for validating model predictions. See what the models say some measurement we have never taken should be, then go take it and compare.

But if we seek even more confidence, there is another way to test a model's "predictive" power over a long time period and that is called hindcasting. By starting the model at some time in the past, say the turn of the 20th century, and running it forward from that point, all the while feeding it the data about how GHG and aerosol and solar and volcanic and albedo forcing all did play out according to observation, we can directly compare modelled behaviour with actual observations. This of course has been done many times. Have a look at
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm
and judge for yourself how they did. Would a prediction of temperature for year 2000 made in 1900 have been validated? Would politicians in 1900 have been wise to heed the warnings of science had science been able to do this at that time? Clearly, yes."

oh, and I'm quite convinced that Tisha only settled that question based on this article, just to impress you, dieseldog :-P

i understand the science behind GW. thats why i'm againest it. policy/laws should not be made on theories and modifyed guess-estamates. i had no money on the question tisha settled, nor did i send in the settlement request. tisha doesn't have to impress me with her actions. her smile and body does that already. :O)

"The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for September 2009 was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th Century average of 15.0°C (59.0°F). This was the second warmest September on record, behind 2005, and the 33rd consecutive September with a global temperature above the 20th Century average. The last below-average September occurred in 1976." (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2009&month=9&submitted=Get+Report)

@dieseldog

I saw her smile, where did you see her body??

kru - a gentleman doesn't kiss and tell.

ohw, so why don't you tell me?

:-P

10/26: "WASHINGTON - An analysis of global temperatures by independent statisticians shows the Earth is still warming and not cooling as some global warming skeptics are claiming. The analysis was conducted at the request of The Associated Press to investigate the legitimacy of talk of a cooling trend that has been spreading on the Internet, fueled by some news reports, a new book and temperatures that have been cooler in a few recent years. In short, it is not true, according to the statisticians who contributed to the AP analysis." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33482750/ns/us_news-environment//

"...independent statisticians..." "...at the request of The Associated Press to investigate..."

Well, it's settled then. This is all the proof I need... I will blindly worship Algore and pay my carbon penance to him ;-)

Climate chief Lord Stern: give up meat to save the planet
People will need to consider turning vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6891362.ece

More vegetarians = More beef for me =)

After scientists are able to grow ground beef in a petri dish McDonnalds will advertise that "no cows were harmed in the making of this burger" and PETA will be sooo happy and there will be less cows belching and farting so environmentalists will be sooo happy too.

You're right, FoF; why would anyone trust independent professional statisticians who have carefully looked at the raw temperature data and, basing their evaluation only on those numbers and nothing else, reported back that there was no downward trend in those numbers? Boy, that is stupid, huh? I'd much rather listen to a bunch of Big Energy CEOs; after all, they have absolutely nothing to gain by lying to us, do they?

You've tipped your hand here, if you haven't done so before: you, like most Deniers, are either unwilling or unable to deal with verifiable scientific truth. Sad...

We dropped 20 degrees yesterday and at that rate we will all freeze to death by the week!

DNFTT

Professor Ian Plimer, a geologist from Adelaide University, argues that a recent rise in temperature around the world is caused by solar cycles and other "extra terrestrial" forces.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6553592/Climate-change-sceptic-Ian-Plimer-argues-CO2-is-not-causing-global-warming.html

slience ALL critics no matter who they are!

http://www.pyrabang.com/view.php?ref=jimgray1214&post_id=35659


http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/27452259/gag-order.htm#q=EPA+workers+warned+after+criticizing+%27cap+and+trade%27+plan

Prof. Plimer--whom FoF mentions in #148--is a well-known denier/skeptic who happens to hold a directorship--and millions of dollars of shares--in several Big Energy mining companies. His recent book Heaven and Earth has been universally panned by scientists as full of "schoolboy-level" errors. (My favorite is his belief that the demonstrated rise in global sea levels over the past few years is due not to GW but "vibration consolidating the coral island sands" and extraction of sand for road-making purposes. Really?)

@dieseldog,
did they deny Climate Change??

@kruijs:

of course not - that would be stupid. Climate is supposed to change - ever hear the old saying about something or someone being "changeable as the weather?" The question is whether humans cause climates to change, or if (as any reasonable adult would tell you) climate changes naturally based on many factors such as sun spots, ocean currents, and so forth.

Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html
Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.

At least the weather in Copenhagen is likely to be cooperating. The Danish Meteorological Institute predicts that temperatures in December, when the city will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference, will be one degree above the long-term average.

Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth's average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.

...

[More at the link...]

The only climatologist who'd be baffled be a stalling of GW is A) one who is ignorant of how long-term values are derived and B) one who has conveniently forgotten to look at the actual scientific data.

Look at any of the charts and graphs on this page -- http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ -- and try persuading anyone but a simpleton that GW has stalled. 2009 has been the fifth warmest year on record (covering 130 years). Okay, it hasn't been as warm as #1 2005 or #2 2007...but that's to be expected in any long-term trend line. A close look at most of the graphs shows that temps fluctuate up and down every year. 2008, for instance, was the 'coolest' of the last ten years...though 'coolest' is perhaps not the right word, as it was still warmer than any year prior to 1998.

If you guys want to argue whether global warming is man-made or natural, that's fine (though it's almost certainly the former). but you gotta stop debating on whether it's even occurring. It is, and that's an emprically-proven fact that's no longer open to interpretation or spin. You may as well argue that phlogiston is real...

I'll make this prediction: global temperatures will continue to go up and down each year as part of a greater trending increase, meaning that the High Priests Of The Church Of The Deniers will be pounding on the pulpit and proclaiming "Global Warming stopped in 2015!" and "Global Warming stopped in 2032!" and "Global Warming stopped in 2058!"

denying Climate Change is almost as "stupid" as comparing weather with climate, isn't it?

at least, those "baffled" climatologists you refer to in your comment seem to agree on your question about what/who is responsible, at, reading further, (surprise!) that they agree that Global Warming will continue.

Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out

They predict that the average global temperature will increase by about three degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century, unless humanity manages to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Despite their current findings, scientists agree that temperatures will continue to rise in the long term. The big question is: When will it start getting warmer again?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

consensus = opinion

kru - did you watch the videos? its about whats causing it, and how to deal with it. some think they can regulate mother nature. when people in the obama admin go againest that their told to hush up. whats next new taxes & regulation on bubblegum because it causes hurricanes?

i guess it was manmade GW that melted the ice during the last ice-age. all these guesses are made for decades and centuries in the future. i say 100 years from now the earth will be flat do to the reduction of greenhouse gases. :O)

@dieseldog,

wasn't it about the Cap And Trade idea? doesn't Cap And Trade focus on the man-made component? in which way does Cap And Trade regulate mother nature?

I guess most of us agree that something must be done. one can question the efficiency of this Cap And Trade idea, sure. maybe it isn't going to work out as expected.

"all these guesses are made for decades and centuries in the future. i say 100 years from now the earth will be flat do to the reduction of greenhouse gases."
I'm sorry to tell you, but I'd tend to rely on the "guesses" from scientists (you know, real scientific work and models. something you refused to understand before) - and not your "guesses" (your know, narrow minded, egoistic thoughts ending where your backyard ends).

Tired of arguing about this but I have to comment about the "independent professional statisticians" who apparently did some study that proves I am viciously stomping on the worlds metaphorical crotch because I don't drive a Prius. Firstly the article came from MSNBC. That's like me claiming that Obama's a socialist then posting this link as proof: http://www.foxnews.com/glennbeck/ . Second, and more importantly, I really hope people remember that these "independent professional statisticians" have as much of an agenda as "Big Energy CEOs". Please realize that if the world isn't warming these statisticians and scientists don't have a job. It's called warm mongering for a reason. They are making money by adjusting facts to satisfy their superiors.

http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails

The Climatic Research Unit - University of East Anglia in Britain suffered an electronic break-in in recent days. In a turn of events that has the climate change community in an uproar, documents and emails have been revealed that could cause a great deal of trouble for climate change alarmists. (CRU)

Britain’s Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, suffered a data breach in recent days when a hacker apparently broke into their system and made away with thousands of emails and documents. The stolen data was then posted to a Russian server and has quickly made the rounds among climate skeptics. The documents within the archive, if proven to be authentic, would at best be embarrassing for many prominent climate researchers and at worst, damning.
[More at the link...]

8.15 PM UPDATE: The Hadley CRU director admits the emails seem to be genuine:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked

I can't afford a Ford Prius, but I am doing my bit to fight global warming by making huge amounts of ice cubes in the freezer, then I flush them down the toilet - they get flushed out to sea and cool the oceans. Do your bit people!

@POTATP: not true. Those "independent professional statisticians" whom you decry don't work exclusively in any industry tied to either side in the debate (thus the word "independent"). Choose to disbelieve them, and choose to ignore all the evidence. The fact of the matter is, GW is here, it's real, and it's highly likely to have been exacerbated by man's activities.

Second, MSNBC reporting on something that's simultaneously reported on by a thousand other news outlets of every slant is nothing akin to one of Beck's many paranoid, hyper-opinionated, and completely-lacking-in-reality rants. Most reasoning folks can tell the difference, I think.

@notablenotices: Examiner.com? Really? You should try reading some neutral and even left-leaning stuff sometime; it might broaden your horizons a bit. ;-) Having said that, though, I'll say this: the breathless tone of the two articles to which you've linked are far from being a slam dunk of any kind. When the highlighted passages are read in context, there doesn't seem to be anything remotely close to a 'conspiracy' going on. Did you actually read those things? I won't take them apart one by one--which I could do fairly easily--but I'll just say that, with the exception of some in-mild-poor-taste pseudo-celebrating the death of discredited denier John L. Daly nearly six years ago, none of the excerpts I've read remotely raise any red flags--though, admittedly, any FOI violations would be very uncool; that kind of crap is usually left to Right wingers...

kru - you missed the point. i'm saying GW is not man made! the folks who believe it is thinks taxing & regulating man's behavior will fix the problem. when someone disagrees with them their told to hush up. (as showin in the links) your free to believe models and guesses that are constantly wrong. your also free to call me narrow minded and say i have egoistic thoughts. i'm free to rotflol at your childish insults. no i don't agree something has to be done. please oh great one tell me what caused the ice to melt from the last iceage. was it nature running its course? was it man who caused it? surely your scientists with you know, real scientific work and models have the answer.

P.S. i'm off to make some ice cubes to do my part. :O)