Global warming crowd takes a break

[dude1394]

Pretty interesting stuff on this bloggers site. His blog title gives a hint of what he has on it. He seems to be a pretty numbers oriented blogger which is always refreshing. The most recent post is on casualties in Iraq (civilian, military and number of suicide bombers).

The second and third and many subsequent are on climate stuff. Worth the time.
http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/...apita-co2.html

Back Talk

I am a professor at a major research university, a registered Democrat, a liberal by some measures, but a radical conservative relative to the large majority of my colleagues.

Anyway..First up is a very interesting graph on CO2/GDP. Which to me has usually made the most sense when talking about CO2. And a little commentary

It's clear that economic output and CO2 emissions go together, but I wondered how strong the relationship really was. To find out, I compared GDP per capita with CO2 emissions per capita. Here is what that relationship looks like: ,<graph inserted>

The GDP data can be found here and the CO2 data can be found here. Each symbol represents one country in the world, and that point way out to the right is Luxembourg. The red symbol is the United States. The other 4 colored symbols are the nations of the EU-4 (Great Britain, Germany, France and Italy). The trend line shows that as GDP per capita increases, CO2 output per person increases as well. No surprise there. But you can also see that the EU-4 nations fall a bit below the trend line, which means that they produce less CO2 than you'd expect given the size of their economies, whereas the United States falls above the trend line, which means that we produce more CO2 per person than you'd expect given the size of our economy.

Our economy has been growing smartly but CO2 emissions have remained almost constant since Bush took office, so that red point is essentially walking straight right toward the trend line. I'm not sure why our CO2 output is higher than you'd expect given the size of our economy, but part of the problem may be that we are really spread out (which means long drives to work, large trucks crisscrossing a country 3000 miles wide, etc.). Well, first quarter GDP growth was a dismal 0.6%. Quarterly GDP statistics don't really mean much (the same was true that quarter when we had 7% growth), but if we do have an economic slowdown this year, our CO2 output for 2007 ought to be impressively low. That's something, I guess.

What are those 4 really high points on the chart? Those high-CO2-output countries are Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Kuwait. I had not realized that these Arab countries are really cranking out the CO2 emissions.

China is one of the points way down and to the left (near the origin), but it is going to move up fast, an that's the real CO2 problem we face.

[dude1394]

Another very interesting CO2 post. I'm not sure he's thinking this through however, we'd get sued in ICC if we signed up and ignored it. Or we'd never hear the end of it, the bar's just a little different for the US.

I don't understand why the U.S. must be this way:

BERLIN (AP) - The United States rejects the European Union's all-encompassing target on reduction of carbon emissions, President Bush's environmental adviser said Tuesday.


The politically expedient thing to do would be to agree to the new targets and then promptly ignore them. Canada, for example, used that strategy with respect to the Kyoto Protocol. So did most of the European countries. Is anyone mad at them? No. I say we follow their example. Boldly pronounce our new war on greenhouse gas emissions, and set a bunch of silly targets like this:

Germany, which holds the European Union and G-8 presidencies, is proposing a so-called "two-degree" target, whereby global temperatures would be allowed to increase no more than 2 degrees Celsius—the equivalent of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit—before being brought back down. Practically, experts have said that means a global reduction in emissions of 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.


These people appear to be suffering from delusions of grandeur, but who knows? A technological miracle could happen between now and 2050, so let's just sign on to this. And then let's consider the real problem we face:

China and India balked at carbon dioxide emissions cuts after the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012.


Well, no kidding. Those two countries alone have about 40% of the world's population, their economies are growing rapidly, they have large stores of cheap coal, and they are building coal-fired power plants at the speed of light. And as I noted yesterday, China's ability to stop the construction of new power plants seems extremely limited even if they wanted to do that (which they don't).

But there is something to be said for declaring a new war on global warming anyway. If nothing else, it will make people feel better. And those of us who would like to reduce our dependence on foreign oil have much in common with those who believe that we can control the temperature of the globe (e.g., we probably both favor increasing fuel-efficiency standards). It's good to be green even if you don't believe that agreements like these are going to affect global warming.

The Kyoto Protocol was signed in the late 1990s. It sets a goal for ramping back CO2 output to below 1990 levels. News reports often show progress by reporting how countries are doing in relation to that goal (i.e., in relation to 1990 output). But to see the effect of the treaty itself, it seems more useful to look at the change on CO2 output since the treaty was signed. Those numbers can be found here, and I charted them for your consideration:

The "Annex I" parties are all of the nations with relatively advanced economies that signed the agreement. The EU-4 (Great Britain, German, France and Italy) is always our most sensible comparison group. Among that group, only France and Germany increased their emissions, with Italy increasing by 5% (which brought up the average of that group). As a whole, their emission increased slightly less than emissions in the U.S., though I wish I could find statistics through 2006. As I noted here, U.S. emissions are now only 1.1% above 2000 levels. I wonder how the EU-4 is doing over the last 2 years?

As a whole, the EU-15 is clearly headed in the wrong direction. Among two other notable signatories, Japan is doing fairly well, but Canada is really out of control. Canada faced a choice between maintaining economic growth and cutting CO2 emissions. They made their choice, and it's the same one that China and India are going to make.

As you can see, there does not appear to be much of a difference between the nations that signed on to the Kyoto Protocol and the United States. And the U.S. achieved this low percentage increase while having an economy that was expanding much faster than any of these comparison groups (except for Canada, which experienced about the same level of growth). We should have participated in the Kyoto agreement and then just done what everyone else seems to be doing. That chart would look exactly the same, but the feel-good gesture of signing the agreement would make people less angry at America (a little, anyway).

You could still reasonably say that America has more of an obligation than other nations of the world to reduce CO2 emissions because our CO2 output (like our economic output) is the highest in the world, but these numbers are still useful for keeping things in perspective. That's what I love about data.

[dude1394]

A wealth of stuff from this guy. This on a carbon-neutral lifestyle. Seems like the best thing we can do is what we are doing, developing (as quickly as possible) clean coal technology and dispersing it.

So forget about your carbon-neutral lifestyle. The problem is that oil is expensive and coal is cheap, and emerging nations have an interest in keeping the lights on. What that means is that China is going to build a lot of coal-fired power plants, and Chinese government officials don't seem to be in a position to stop the trend even if they wanted to (which they don't). If you decide to live a carbon-neutral lifestyle, good for you. If we all did it, and if we all kept it up for the next 100 years (which isn't likely), the effect would be fairly trivial compared to effect of new coal-fired power plants that are coming you way soon.

So, how important is it to live a carbon-neutral lifestyle? Not very. It would be a noble gesture, but addressing the problem in a serious way is going to be much, much harder than that.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

The biggest problem in the future will definitely be China and India, but we don´t have the right to proctorize them regarding that topic, as we (industrialized countries) are not quite a good role model. The best way is, to assist them in the matter of know how and CO2-reducing technologies.

Regarding CO2-neutral lifestyle, I have a different opinion. If everyone would live in energy-saving houses and make sure to use energy-saving technologies (refrigerator, washing machines,...), it would definitely save many coal power plants and therewith additionally CO2-emission. Also to use CO2 friendly cars would help, especially in USA, as we all know now that people in America have to drive a lot more than in other countries.

[dude1394]

This blogger continues to knock my socks off. It's like having a scientist puruse the internet and pull out DATA. Good stuff, I tell you what!

http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/...l-warming.html

Letter
Nature 447, 698-701 (7 June 2007)

Low Atlantic hurricane activity in the 1970s and 1980s compared to the past 270 years

Hurricane activity in the North Atlantic Ocean has increased significantly since 1995. This trend has been attributed to both anthropogenically induced climate change and natural variability, but the primary cause remains uncertain...The record indicates that the average frequency of major hurricanes decreased gradually from the 1760s until the early 1990s, reaching anomalously low values during the 1970s and 1980s. Furthermore, the phase of enhanced hurricane activity since 1995 is not unusual compared to other periods of high hurricane activity in the record and thus appears to represent a recovery to normal hurricane activity, rather than a direct response to increasing sea surface temperature.


Gee, recent hurricane activity represents a return to normalcy? I don't think the global warming alarmists are going to be very happy about this. Here is more from the article itself:

The years from 1995 to 2005 experienced an average of 4.1 major Atlantic hurricanes (category 3 to 5) per year, while the years 1971 to 1994 experienced an average of 1.5 major hurricanes per year.


And here is the main chart in the article (it is a complex chart, so I snipped the part that provides the essential story):

You see clearly that the number of hurricanes has come back to normal, not increased as an alarmist (ahem..gore) would point out.

The blue line shows hurricane frequency over the years, and you can see that it declined to very low levels between about 1970 and 1990, and then it has increased again in more recent years. Is the recent increase the result of global warming? Here is what the article says:

Although hurricane intensity and destructiveness may increase with increasing global mean temperatures, the effect of climate warming on hurricane frequency is poorly known. Furthermore, it is possible that hurricane activity responds to changes in other external forcings, such as solar activity and aerosol loading.


Blasphemy! I have to admit that I was surprised to see such a balanced presentation in an academic article (especially one appearing in a leading journal). Although I generally worry that liberal academics are incapable of being objective when it comes to research on politically charged issues, this new article suggests that I should probably try to keep a more open mind about that.

Instead of letting Al Gore interpret the science for me, I'm going to start reading the science for myself. Although the "news" article in Nature reflects Gore-like liberal commentary, the research article (i.e., the science) does not. To me, that's news!

[Dr.Zoidberg]

I think those are a little hastily conclusions of this poster, respectively a misinterpretation of the scientific facts:
As I posted before:

Dr. Eberhard Faust

Changing hurricane risk in the North Atlantic

What we are concerned about

Updated to the end of the hurricane season 2005

The elevated frequency of intense storms in 2004 and 2005 — no fewer than four of the ten strongest hurricanes ever recorded occurred in 2004 or 2005 — hints at a systematic change in the hazard situation and hence a shift in the loss distribution and its parameters.

After an extremely active US hurricane season in 2004 with an absolute record of four hurricane landfalls in/near Florida and the highest overall insured loss from tropical cyclones until then, 2005 has been a season with even higher losses from hurricanes (particularly Katrina, Rita, and Wilma).
Accordingly, the current situation has to be characterised by a higher average market-wide annual loss and different return periods for market-wide claims expenditure compared with the situation a few years ago. In the following analyses, we address the question of new evidence with respect to causes of changes in hurricane frequencies and intensities.

01 Ocean temperatures and cyclone intensities worldwide

A scientific study performed by the Scripps Institute (Barnett et al. (2005) Science) compares recordings of ocean temperatures and respective computer simulations and shows that anthropogenic climate change is having a strong impact on increases in recorded temperatures of the upper ocean layers since 1960 (cf. Tourre/White GRL (2005)).
Other scientific studies by US researchers (Emanuel (2005), Nature; Webster et al. (2005), Science) have shown the following. There is evidence of a warmer trend during the summer season in all tropical oceans amounting to an average of 0.5°C since 1970. The intensity of tropical cyclones, characterised by the parameters of maximum wind speed and cumulative length of time with high wind speeds, increases in correlation with sea surface temperature (Fig. 1). As a consequence of this correlation, the global number of severe tropical cyclones (4–5 on the Saffir-Simpson Scale) has increased in relation to the annual total for all ocean basins. There has been a steep increase in absolute terms too, from about 8 per year at the beginning of the 1970s to 18 per year, i.e. more than double — in the period 2000–2004. At the same time, the proportion of weaker cyclones (Category 1) has decreased, while there is no recognisable trend as far as the moderate types (Categories 2-3) are concerned (Fig. 2).

02 Climate oscillation in the North Atlantic

In addition to this shift in the intensity distribution towards the higher categories, changes may also be observed in the total frequency in some regions. The number of cyclones occurring throughout the world every year on average is 80 (margin of deviation: 20) without any distinctive trend.
A general increase in frequency is observed in the North Atlantic since 1970, that means from a comparatively cool period to the current "warm phase" in terms of sea surface temperatures (Fig. 3). Accordingly, the hurricane season of 2005 has set an absolute record in terms of the number of named tropical storms (27, old record 21) and hurricanes (15, old record 12).
If further research findings of recent years are taken into account (Goldenberg (2001), Science; Trenberth (2005), Science), the result for the North Atlantic is such that cyclone activity is determined there both by a natural climate oscillation and by a superimposed linear warming process — most probably not explainable without anthropogenic global warming.
There are alternating phases lasting for several decades with exceptionally warm or exceptionally cool sea surface temperatures, the margin of deviation being around 0.5°C. The natural climatic fluctuation is driven by the ocean's large-scale currents (thermohaline circulation, Knight et al. (2005) GRL, Willoughby/Masters (2005)). Warm phases produce a distinct increase in hurricane frequency and also more intense storms, whereas cold phases have the opposite effect. So in the current warm phase, for example, 4.1 strong hurricanes have already occurred per year on average while in the previous cold phase this figure only was 1.5 (this means an increase by 173%). Of course, a definitive value for the average annual level of activity for the whole of the current warm phase can only be given when this phase has ended. The figures correspond to the observation possible up to 2005.

03 Global warming

At the same time, the natural fluctuation between these phases seems to be intensified by a superimposed long-term warming process so that sea surface temperature and the level of hurricane activity increase from warm phase to warm phase (Fig. 4). The increase in the number of strong hurricanes per year from 2.6 to 4.1 from the previous warm phase to the current warm phase means an increase of 58%.* There are strong arguments in favour of climate change as the long-term warming agent. The current unusually high level of activity is most probably due to the warm phase prevailing since the mid-1990s, which is supposed to continue for several years and intensified by the relatively linear process of global warming.

There is a clear indication that both the natural climatic cycle and global warming influence not only overall frequency but also landfall frequency. Between the last warm phase (approx. 1926 to approx. 1970) and the current warm phase since approx. 1995, the average annual number of landfalls increased as follows (Fig. 5):

Cat. 3—5 hurricanes+67% (from 0.6 to 1.0)
Cat. 1—5 hurricanes+33% (from 1.8 to 2.4)
Trop. storms and Cat. 1—5 hurricanes+47% (from 3.4 to 5.0)

This comparison has to be seen as being primarily linked to the influence of global warming.


The change in level between the last cold phase (approx. 1971 to approx. 1994) and the current warm phase since 1995 has the following impact on the number of landfalls (Fig. 5):

Cat. 3—5 hurricanes+233% (from 0.3 to 1.0)
Cat. 1—5 hurricanes+100% (from 1.2 to 2.4)
Trop. storms and Cat. 1—5 hurricanes+100% (from 2.5 to 5.0)

This comparison has to be seen as being primarily indicative of the natural climatic oscillation.

* The records of the period before aircraft reconnaissance started in the mid-1940s are not as reliable as the records since then. This applies primarily to intensity attributions, because one has to rely on observations made by ships.

04 Different loss distribution

These strong changes, reflected in both the number of tropical cyclones and the number of landfalls, can only mean that we must expect a different loss distribution in the current warm phase since 1995 compared with the distribution in the prior period.
We should recall that we observe an increase in terms of the annual frequency of major hurricanes in the order of 170% from the foregoing cold phase (1971 to 1994) to the current warm phase since 1995. In terms of landfalls the increase is of the order of 230%.
Even if we compare the loss distribution of the current warm phase with a loss distribution based on all years since 1900, which can be called indifferent towards the natural climate cycle, we should expect a large difference. This is strongly indicated by a comparison of hurricane intensity distributions calculated for the whole period 1900 — 2005 versus the current warm period 1995 — 2005 (Fig. 6). It is plain to see that the current warm phase is marked by a higher proportion of strong hurricanes (Categories 4 and 5 on the Saffir-Simpson Scale) and a lower proportion of weaker hurricanes (Categories 1 and 2 on the Saffir-Simpson Scale). Category 4 and 5 hurricanes account for 14% and 6% respectively in the distribution since 1900 and have increased to 20% and 10% in the current warm phase distribution. On the other hand, the Category 1 and 2 hurricanes account for 37% and 23% respectively in the distribution over all years since 1900 and have decreased to 34% and 17% in the current warm phase distribution.
None of the loss models available commercially incorporate such a change in the distribution. So it is a major challenge for the insurance industry to respond to the present-day hazard distribution and — as a consequence of this — the present-day loss distribution and to take them into consideration adequately in its risk management.

05 Glossary

Anthropogenic climate change/global warming

During the period of industrialisation, greenhouse gas emissions increased steadily and led to an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 380 ppm in 2004. The pre-industrial level was 280 to 300 ppm which at least for the past 650,000 years and probably for the last millions of years has not been exceeded. There are other greenhouse gases such as methane or dinitrogen oxide, which have increased equally fast.
Greenhouse gases alter the radiation properties of the atmosphere in such a way that much more energy from the sun is trapped by the lower parts of the atmosphere. This anthropogenic global warming comes in addition to what is called the natural greenhouse effect. Even before the appearance of mankind and of the industrial age the earth's atmosphere contained greenhouse gases (in particular CO2 and others), which have warmed the earth's surface by roughly 33°C. This natural greenhouse effect must be regarded as a precondition for the development of life on the planet.

Tropical cyclone

General expression for tropical storms forming over tropical oceans. Depending on the region and strength they are called hurricanes (Atlantic and Northeast Pacific), typhoons (Northwest Pacific), or cyclones (Indian Ocean and Australia).

Saffir-Simpson intensity scale

The Saffir-Simpson Scale is a five-stage intensity scale for tropical cyclones. The scale spans the following categories:

• Cat 1: windspeed 118—153 km/h; central pressure >= 980 hPa
• Cat 2: windspeed 154—177 km/h; central pressure 965—979 hPa
• Cat 3: windspeed 178—209 km/h; central pressure 945—964 hPa
• Cat 4: windspeed 210—249 km/h; central pressure 920—944 hPa
• Cat 5: windspeed > 250 km/h; central pressure < 920 hPa

Atlantic cold phases/warm phases

The so-called cold and warm phases in the North Atlantic are part of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). The mechanism behind it is a large-scale water flow conveyer belt in the ocean with periodically enhanced or reduced activity resulting in unusually warm or unusually cool surface waters in parts of the ocean. This overturning circulation, which is driven by water temperatures and water salinities, is called the thermohaline circulation.

Natural climate oscillation

Natural climate oscillations can be differentiated by the respective time scales. They are not driven by external influences on the earth's climate system, such as changes in solar irradiance or anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Examples of natural climate oscillations are the El-Nino/Southern-Oscillation events (interdecadal time scale), the North Atlantic Oscillation (quasi-decadal Oscillation) or the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (multidecadal time scale).

http://www.munichre.com/ (Choose English on the upper right side and than go to: --->TOPICS & SOLUTIONS --->Georisks)

[dude1394]

We'd better hurry up and approve Kyoto, so China and India can get a leg up on our economies while the pollute us to death.

You think the enviro-nazis will start protesting and railing against China now? Sorta doubt it.
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/cl...106689,00.html

China has overtaken the United States as the world's biggest producer of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, figures released today show.

The surprising announcement will increase anxiety about China's growing role in driving man-made global warming and will pile pressure onto world politicians to agree a new global agreement on climate change that includes the booming Chinese economy. China's emissions had not been expected to overtake those from the US, formerly the world's biggest polluter, for several years, although some reports predicted it could happen as early as next year.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

I think the industrialized nations are strong enough to withstand the booming economies of China and India.

Also, as I wrote before, we have not the right to forbid those countries to do, what we did (wrong) before, for decades! People in glass houses shouldn&#180;t throw stones.

All the whining doesn&#180;t help. It&#180;s better to assist those nations to prevent the failures we&#180;ve made.

[dude1394]

That's why kyoto is a bunch of horse-hockey, it addresses nothing, but gives people a feelgood.

[dude1394]

Eek...Eeeekkk...Eeekkkk.... GLOBAL COOLING!!! Thank you China, hurry up please!!

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/f...4068db11f4&p=4

Read the sunspots
The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change - and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling
R. TIMOTHY PATTERSON, Financial Post
Published: Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Politicians and environmentalists these days convey the impression that climate-change research is an exceptionally dull field with little left to discover. We are assured by everyone from David Suzuki to Al Gore to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that "the science is settled." At the recent G8 summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel even attempted to convince world leaders to play God by restricting carbon-dioxide emissions to a level that would magically limit the rise in world temperatures to 2C.

The fact that science is many years away from properly understanding global climate doesn't seem to bother our leaders at all. Inviting testimony only from those who don't question political orthodoxy on the issue, parliamentarians are charging ahead with the impossible and expensive goal of "stopping global climate change." Liberal MP Ralph Goodale's June 11 House of Commons assertion that Parliament should have "a real good discussion about the potential for carbon capture and sequestration in dealing with carbon dioxide, which has tremendous potential for improving the climate, not only here in Canada but around the world," would be humorous were he, and even the current government, not deadly serious about devoting vast resources to this hopeless crusade.

Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thou-sand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by dude1394

That's why kyoto is a bunch of horse-hockey, it addresses nothing, but gives people a feelgood.

Agree!

So I don´t understand the fuss and bother USA staged around the signing of the protocol?!? It seems like none has a disadvantage after signing.

To your Global Cooling post:

Hooray, we are rescued!

[Usually Lurkin]

I'm too tired to read this thread. But it's obvious to anyone who pays attention that CO2 is causing changes in sunspots and planetary temparature.

[dude1394]

Dang that scientific concensus just can't keep everyone under it's thumb. Facts keep leaking out.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/othervi...REF30b.article

Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny

June 30, 2007
BY JAMES M. TAYLOR
In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, "We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth." Gore repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing as the central focus of public discourse.

If Gore really means what he writes, he has an opportunity to make a difference by leading by example on the issue of global warming.

A cooperative and productive discussion of global warming must be open and honest regarding the science. Global warming threats ought to be studied and mitigated, and they should not be deliberately exaggerated as a means of building support for a desired political position.

Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.

For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."

Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."

Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.

Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.

Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts. However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, "Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa."

Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain." In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.

Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.

Each of these cases provides an opportunity for Gore to lead by example in his call for an end to the distortion of science. Will he rise to the occasion? Only time will tell.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute.

[Mavdog]

I guess it is which report one wants to use to further their position.

google"himalayan glaciers" and up comes reports from national geographic, world wildlife federation, and the nepalese government that state the glaciers are indeed shrinking.

do the same for "Mount Kilimanjaro ice cap" and low and behold you get reports from universities and national geographic that agree with al gore the ice caps are truly retreating.

the above article says greenland is indeed the ice sheet is thinning; it just wants to sy that it isn't as "rapid" as gore makes out.

it's easy to say that there isn't a need to react to the global warming trend in a forceful a way a gore is advocating. however it is impossible to NOT agree that there is a warming trend in our planet's atmosphere.

so do we just put our head in the sand and hope for the best, or do we act in a responsible manner and adjust our actions which contribute to this warming trend to lessen its severity and perhaps its affects?

a responsible, thoughful person would say the latter.

me, I weigh in on being proactive and responsible.

which do you want to be?

[dude1394]

I actually agree with you mavie. As long as we don't make it some sort of crusade that shouts down all folks who have data that contradicts the climatology religion.

I want to reduce our emissions as long as it's not a detriment to our standard of living. I do NOT want any kind of large beauracratic Kyoto-like world treaty at all. That I feel is bull-honkey.

I would like to see us reduce our reliance on oil (mainly for security purposes and drain the dollars from the radical oil regimes).

I refuse to be caught up in the hysteria that gore is trying to ram down folks throats, that will just cause a lot of politicians passing laws to make themselves look good while the pick the winners.

Ethanol being a good example.

As soon as Gore and his ilk stand up and ask for x number of nuclear plants, I'll listen to him.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

I personally don´t want to shout down all folks who have data that contradicts the climatology religion, but I have some comments to your second last post:

For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."

Global glacial mass balance in the last fifty years, reported to the WGMS and NSIDC. The increasing downward trend in the late 1980s is symptomatic of the increased rate and number of retreating glaciers.

No more to say.

Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."

Maybe. But there are many other glaciers, not affected from deforestation, also shrinking rapidly, which most likely is caused through global warming.

Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.

At first I would like to see the data, which affirm those statements. And even if there are some stats, it´s his word against hers:

02 Climate oscillation in the North Atlantic

In addition to this shift in the intensity distribution towards the higher categories, changes may also be observed in the total frequency in some regions. The number of cyclones occurring throughout the world every year on average is 80 (margin of deviation: 20) without any distinctive trend.
A general increase in frequency is observed in the North Atlantic since 1970, that means from a comparatively cool period to the current "warm phase" in terms of sea surface temperatures (Fig. 3). Accordingly, the hurricane season of 2005 has set an absolute record in terms of the number of named tropical storms (27, old record 21) and hurricanes (15, old record 12).
If further research findings of recent years are taken into account (Goldenberg (2001), Science; Trenberth (2005), Science), the result for the North Atlantic is such that cyclone activity is determined there both by a natural climate oscillation and by a superimposed linear warming process — most probably not explainable without anthropogenic global warming.
There are alternating phases lasting for several decades with exceptionally warm or exceptionally cool sea surface temperatures, the margin of deviation being around 0.5°C. The natural climatic fluctuation is driven by the ocean's large-scale currents (thermohaline circulation, Knight et al. (2005) GRL, Willoughby/Masters (2005)). Warm phases produce a distinct increase in hurricane frequency and also more intense storms, whereas cold phases have the opposite effect. So in the current warm phase, for example, 4.1 strong hurricanes have already occurred per year on average while in the previous cold phase this figure only was 1.5 (this means an increase by 173%). Of course, a definitive value for the average annual level of activity for the whole of the current warm phase can only be given when this phase has ended. The figures correspond to the observation possible up to 2005.

03 Global warming

At the same time, the natural fluctuation between these phases seems to be intensified by a superimposed long-term warming process so that sea surface temperature and the level of hurricane activity increase from warm phase to warm phase (Fig. 4). The increase in the number of strong hurricanes per year from 2.6 to 4.1 from the previous warm phase to the current warm phase means an increase of 58%.* There are strong arguments in favour of climate change as the long-term warming agent. The current unusually high level of activity is most probably due to the warm phase prevailing since the mid-1990s, which is supposed to continue for several years and intensified by the relatively linear process of global warming.

There is a clear indication that both the natural climatic cycle and global warming influence not only overall frequency but also landfall frequency. Between the last warm phase (approx. 1926 to approx. 1970) and the current warm phase since approx. 1995, the average annual number of landfalls increased as follows (Fig. 5):

Cat. 3—5 hurricanes+67% (from 0.6 to 1.0)
Cat. 1—5 hurricanes+33% (from 1.8 to 2.4)
Trop. storms and Cat. 1—5 hurricanes+47% (from 3.4 to 5.0)

This comparison has to be seen as being primarily linked to the influence of global warming.


The change in level between the last cold phase (approx. 1971 to approx. 1994) and the current warm phase since 1995 has the following impact on the number of landfalls (Fig. 5):

Cat. 3—5 hurricanes+233% (from 0.3 to 1.0)
Cat. 1—5 hurricanes+100% (from 1.2 to 2.4)
Trop. storms and Cat. 1—5 hurricanes+100% (from 2.5 to 5.0)

This comparison has to be seen as being primarily indicative of the natural climatic oscillation.

* The records of the period before aircraft reconnaissance started in the mid-1940s are not as reliable as the records since then. This applies primarily to intensity attributions, because one has to rely on observations made by ships.

Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.

The causes of this phenomenon are not efficiently explored, unknown or debatable. Here nice short summary of wikipedia:

The British Antarctic Survey, which has undertaken the majority of Britain's scientific research in the area, has the following positions: [6]

• Ice makes polar climate sensitive by introducting a strong positive feedback loop.
• Melting of continental Antarctic ice could contribute to global sea level rise.
• Climate models predict more snowfall than ice melting during the next 50 years, but models are not good enough for them to be confident about the prediction.
• Antarctica seems to be both warming around the edges and cooling at the center at the same time. Thus it is not possible to say whether it is warming or cooling overall.
• There is no evidence for a decline in overall Antarctic sea ice extent.
• The central and southern parts of the west coast of the Antarctic Peninsula have warmed by nearly 3°C. The cause is not known.
• Changes have occurred in the upper atmosphere over Antarctica.

The area of strongest cooling appears at the South Pole, and the region of strongest warming lies along the Antarctic Peninsula. One possible explanation for this is that the warmer temperatures in the surrounding ocean have produced more precipitation in the continent's interior, and this increased snowfall has cooled the high-altitude region around the pole. Another possible explanation is that loss of UV-absorbing ozone may have cooled the stratosphere and strengthened the polar vortex, a pattern of spinning winds around the South Pole. The vortex acts like an atmospheric barrier, preventing warmer, coastal air from moving in to the continent's interior. A stronger polar vortex might explain the cooling trend in the interior of Antarctica.



This image shows trends in skin temperatures—temperatures from roughly the top millimeter of the land or sea surface—of Antarctica from 1982 to 2004. Red indicates areas where temperatures generally increased during that period, and blue shows where temperatures predominantly decreased.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Antarctica

Altogether, the research around the topic global warming is borderland-science. Many coherences are insufficient clarified, nevertheless more facts rather point to warmer global temperatures than constant or even colder temperatures.

Concerning the Kyoto Protocol I completely agree with you dude. It´s not particularly effective. A typically solution from the politicians, to silence their conscience. The best and in my opinion the only way to prevent global warming is to develop, support and use ecofriendly technology and to live a little less energy wasteful.

I for one feel better to do something for protecting the environment, as it wouldn´t harm anybody, even if the global warming trend is a wrong interpretation of our climate.

[kg_veteran]

Mavdog - I think most people agree that we need to make efforts to conserve energy, reduce pollution, etc. The problem is that Gore (and others) are using the issue to further an agenda that has everything to do with political power and nothing to do with saving the world.

If Gore and company would stop with the outrageous claims which clearly aren't settled science and give up all of the alarmism, that'd be one thing. But Gore doesn't want his version of the "truth" to be challenged -- a sure sign for an educated and reasonable person that he's up to no good.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Mavdog - I think most people agree that we need to make efforts to conserve energy, reduce pollution, etc. The problem is that Gore (and others) are using the issue to further an agenda that has everything to do with political power and nothing to do with saving the world.

an "agenda" of what exactly? is setting policy directed towards reducing our emmissions granting power to one group over another?

I cannot see that the effort being made has "nothing to do with saving the world", it seems that it has everything to do with that very goal.

If Gore and company would stop with the outrageous claims which clearly aren't settled science and give up all of the alarmism, that'd be one thing. But Gore doesn't want his version of the "truth" to be challenged -- a sure sign for an educated and reasonable person that he's up to no good.

as was shown above, the claims that dude's article addressed aren't outrageous.

it seems that to get the public's attention one must be a bit alarmist, if the statements don't entail a degree of alarm and tinged with some sort of catastrophic calamity at the end nobody pays much attention. this isn't just gore & co. who uses this to their end, it's used by all sides.

as for if gore or anyone passionate about the issue doesn't want to be challenged, all I can point out is the recent case of nasa as well as noaa scientists who were muzzeled by the current administration for his advocacy of the global warming position such as gore's. there's an example of being "up to no good" for ya...

http://audubonmagazine.org/fieldnote...notes0703.html

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

an "agenda" of what exactly? is setting policy directed towards reducing our emmissions granting power to one group over another?

I cannot see that the effort being made has "nothing to do with saving the world", it seems that it has everything to do with that very goal.

The agenda is to assert greater governmental control over the lives of the people.

it seems that to get the public's attention one must be a bit alarmist, if the statements don't entail a degree of alarm and tinged with some sort of catastrophic calamity at the end nobody pays much attention. this isn't just gore & co. who uses this to their end, it's used by all sides.

I don't want anyone doing it.

There is no concrete proof that any catastrophic calamities are coming. To act as if there are is deceptive at best.

as for if gore or anyone passionate about the issue doesn't want to be challenged, all I can point out is the recent case of nasa as well as noaa scientists who were muzzeled by the current administration for his advocacy of the global warming position such as gore's. there's an example of being "up to no good" for ya...

What does that have to do with Gore not wanting us to think for ourselves and challenge the science behind his claims?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

The agenda is to assert greater governmental control over the lives of the people.

take a leap and say that there is validity to the issue, and that we are exacerbating the problem by our actions.

what would you want done, nothing? leave it up to individuals and to industry themselves to change?

do you believe that there would indeed be any changes made if this were the path?

There is no concrete proof that any catastrophic calamities are coming. To act as if there are is deceptive at best.

seems to me that the "concrete proof" would only happen once the calamity occurs. that doesn't seem to be a very wise course to take....

there can be no question with the fact that our planet's temperature is increasing. do you disagree?

What does that have to do with Gore not wanting us to think for ourselves and challenge the science behind his claims?

you claim thatgore wants to silence his critics yet it is those who disagree with gore that have been guilty of that very act....seems that you accuse Gore of this. just what has he or his group done?

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

take a leap and say that there is validity to the issue, and that we are exacerbating the problem by our actions.

what would you want done, nothing? leave it up to individuals and to industry themselves to change?

do you believe that there would indeed be any changes made if this were the path?

I'm pretty much in agreement with dude1394 on this issue. I think conservation and innovation should be promoted, but not in such a manner that it has crippling economic effects.

seems to me that the "concrete proof" would only happen once the calamity occurs. that doesn't seem to be a very wise course to take....

there can be no question with the fact that our planet's temperature is increasing. do you disagree?

Yes. The average temperature appears to have slightly increased over the past century. As Jonah Goldberg put it, that's a pretty good trade-off for the amazing increase in standard of living experienced in most parts of the world.

you claim thatgore wants to silence his critics yet it is those who disagree with gore that have been guilty of that very act....seems that you accuse Gore of this. just what has he or his group done?

Gore and other environmental scientists who believe in the climate change religion have shouted down the opposition at every opportunity, claiming that the issue is "settled science", when in fact it is not. FWIW, I'm not in favor of the Bush Administration muzzling government scientists, either. Let all of the information be heard, and then let people make up their minds.

Gore's hysteria has led to people like Nicholas Kristof writing pieces in the NY Times (last week) claiming that our SUVs are causing people to starve in Africa. And he didn't suggest that it was a possibility; he stated it as FACT -- something it clearly is not.

[kg_veteran]

I'll comment on your post later. Here's the Kristof column:

http://stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_rea...=1023396282007

Our Gas Guzzlers, Their Lives

by: Nicholas D. Kristof 28 June 2007
BUJUMBURA, Burundi -- If we need any more proof that life is unfair, it is that subsistence villagers here in Africa will pay with their lives for our refusal to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

When we think of climate change, we tend to focus on Alaskan villages or New Orleans hurricanes. But the people who will suffer the worst will be those living in countries like this, even though they don't contribute at all to global warming.

My win-a-trip journey with a student and a teacher has taken us to Burundi, which the World Bank's latest report shows to be the poorest country in the world. People in Burundi have an annual average income of $100, nearly one child in five dies before the age of five, and life expectancy is 45.

Against that grim backdrop, changing weather patterns in recent years have already caused crop failures — and when the crops fail here, people starve. In short, our greenhouse gases are killing people here.

"If the harvest fails in the West, then you have stocks and can get by," said Gerard Rusuku, an agriculture scientist here who has been studying the impact of global warming in Africa. "Here, we're much more vulnerable. If climate change causes a crop failure here, there's famine."

Guillaume Foliot of the World Food Program notes that farmers here overwhelmingly agree that the weather has already become more erratic, leading to lost crops. And any visitor can see that something is amiss: Africa's "great lakes" are shrinking.

Burundi is on Lake Tanganyika, which is still a vast expanse of water. But the shoreline has retreated 50 feet in the last four years, and ships can no longer reach the port.

"Even the hippos are unhappy," said Alexander Mbarubukeye, a fisherman on the lake, referring to the hippos that occasionally waddled into town before the lake retreated.

The biggest of Africa's great lakes, Lake Victoria, was dropping by a vertical half-inch a day for much of last year. And far to the north, once enormous Lake Chad has nearly vanished. The reasons for the dipping lake levels seem to include climate change.

Greenhouse gases actually have the greatest impact at high latitudes — the Arctic and Antarctica. But the impact there isn't all bad (Canada will gain a northwest passage), and the countries there are rich enough to absorb the shocks.

In contrast, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned this year that the consequences for Africa will be particularly harsh because of the region's poverty and vulnerability. It foresees water shortages and crop failures in much of Africa.

"Projected reductions in yield in some countries could be as much as 50 percent by 2020, and crop net revenues could fall as much as 90 percent," the panel warned. It also cautioned that warming temperatures could lead malaria to spread to highland areas. Another concern is that scarcities of food and water will trigger wars. More than five million lives have already been lost since 1994 in wars in Rwanda, Burundi and Congo, and one factor was competition for scarce resources.

"It seems to me rather like pouring petrol onto a burning fire," Jock Stirrup, the chief of the British defense staff, told a meeting in London this month. He noted that climate change could cause weak states to collapse.

Yoweri Museveni, Uganda's president, describes climate change as "the latest form of aggression" by rich countries against Africa. He has a point. Charles Ehrhart, a Care staff member in Kenya who works full time on climate-change issues, says that the negative impact of the West's carbon emissions will overwhelm the positive effects of aid.

"It's at the least disastrous and quite possibly catastrophic," Mr. Ehrhart said of the climate effects on Africa. "Life was difficult, but with climate change it turns deadly."

"That's what hits the alarm bells for an organization like Care," he added. "How can we ever achieve our mission in this situation?"

All this makes it utterly reckless that we fail to institute a carbon tax or at least a cap-and-trade system for emissions. The cost of our environmental irresponsibility will be measured in thousands of children dying of hunger, malaria and war.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

I don&#180;t think the author of this article comes to his conclusions because of Gore, but based on the recently published IPCC-Report. Of course he exaggerates with the statement that to drive a SUV kills people over there, but to drive big cars with a high consumption contributes to the increasing temperatures (if only a little share). Here an interesting article regarding global warming and the effects on Africa:

Global warming in Africa
Drying up and flooding out

May 10th 2007 | NAIROBI
From The Economist print edition

Rich countries may be largely to blame for adding climate change to Africa's litany of problems, but the continent's own politicians have yet to take it seriously

AT A recent African Union summit, Uganda's combustible president, Yoweri Museveni, declared climate change an act of aggression by the rich world against the poor one—and demanded compensation. The moral arguments on climate change are even murkier than arguments about other wrongs done to Africa, such as slavery, but Mr Museveni may have hit on something. If the predictions of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), hold true, climate change may have a graver effect on Africa than on any other continent; the final part of the panel's latest report has just been published (see article). Scientists now blame industrialisation (read, the rich world) for some of the warming. In any event, the contrast between poverty in Africa and carbon gluttony elsewhere is sharp. Why should the poorest die for the continued excesses of the richest?

The IPCC's most recent regional report certainly raises the spectre of rising mortality. It predicts a minimum 2.5&#176;C increase in temperature in Africa by 2030; drylands bordering the deserts may get drier, wetlands bordering the rainforests may get wetter (see map). The panel suggests the supply of food in Africa will be “severely compromised” by climate change, with crop yields in danger of collapsing in some countries.



In the drylands, water may become a critical issue. Soaring temperatures and erratic rainfall may dry up surface water. Between 75m and 250m Africans, out of the 800m or so now living in sub-Saharan Africa, may be short of water. The soil will hold less moisture, bore-holes will become contaminated, and women and girls will have to walk ever greater distances to fetch water. Vegetative cover will recede. The IPCC guesses that 600,000 square kilometres (232,000 square miles) of cultivable land may be ruined.

Warming may also hurt animal habitats and biodiversity. More algae in freshwater lakes will hit fishing. The glaciers of Uganda's Rwenzori mountains, of Tanzania's Kilimanjaro and of Kenya's eponymous mountain may disappear; only seven of the 18 glaciers recorded on Mount Kenya in 1900 still remain. At the same time, a likely rise in sea levels may threaten the coastal infrastructure of northern Egypt, the Gambia, the Gulf of Guinea and Senegal.

There are two caveats to this gloomy scenario. The first is that some parts of Africa may benefit from climate change. Increased rainfall in highland areas in eastern Africa could, for example, be beneficial. Second, though climate-change models have improved, they have been unreliable in Africa. The broad outline is plain but the detail is guesswork.

Still, some scientists think that climate change may be even crueller to parts of Africa than the IPCC predicts. The important point, they say, is not the degree of warming but the continent's vulnerability to it. A University of Pretoria study estimates that Africa might lose $25 billion in crop failure due to rising temperatures and another $4 billion from less rain. The already impoverished drylands would suffer most. Some cite the war in Sudan's Darfur region as proof of the damage done by climate change, soil erosion and overpopulation.

Unfortunately, few African leaders have grasped the scale of the challenge posed by climate change. Most oil-producers have squandered their bonanza. Nigeria has failed to plan for how to stem the dreadful pollution in its oil-producing Delta region or to prevent desertification tearing at the fabric of its dry Muslim north. South Africa is only just beginning to own up to its coal addiction. Uganda's Mr Museveni is fighting off a rare insurrection from his supporters against plans to turn a piece of Ugandan rainforest over to farming. The World Meteorological Organisation says that weather-data collection in Africa has recently got worse, just as the need for accurate figures has grown; many of the automatic weather stations it helped set up have fallen into disrepair. The African Union has done little to sound the climate-change alarm.

Kenya's president, Mwai Kibaki, says that Africa should “join hands” with its friends in the rich world over climate change. He wants more carbon-trading projects to come to Africa; so far, most have gone to Asia. His advisers admit that Mr Kibaki's ambitious plan to turn Kenya into an industrial country by 2020 worries environmentalists, but say that reforestation, thermal power and better management of water and grazing would, if they materialised, offset the damage.

Africa emits far less carbon than other continents, so its recently faster-growing economies do not gravely menace its environment. Some rich-country consumers, however, want to punish African countries for airfreighting northwards some of their produce, from flowers to wine.

Hardier new varieties of staple crops, drip irrigation schemes and technologies such as solar power should help Africa adapt to climate change. But so can simple shifts in policy. For instance, a government decision in Burkina Faso to let farmers own the trees on their land has increased the country's tree cover.

Most vital of all is the cash—probably from rich countries—to pay for roads, schools, clinics and improvements in livestock management in the most vulnerable regions. Whether Mr Museveni's outrage will sway donors is unclear. As the G8 rich countries are failing so far to fulfil the promises they made in 2005 to boost aid to Africa, the continent should not expect much new money to protect the environment. In the short run, Africa's own politicians need to take a lead, even if the people most culpable for the damage done by climate change live elsewhere.

http://www.economist.com/world/afric...ory_id=9163426

[dude1394]

As long as the media continues throwing this junk out at me in this fashion, I'm going to continue to be a very sceptical observor.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap...001031,00.html

LAST month Australians endured our coldest June since 1950. Imagine that; all those trillions of tonnes of evil carbon we've horked up into the atmosphere over six decades of rampant industrialisation, and we're still getting the same icy weather we got during the Cold War.

Not that June should be presented as evidence that global warming isn't happening, or that we're causing it. Relying on such a tiny sample would be unscientific and wrong, even if it involves an entire freakin' continent's weather patterns throughout the course of a whole month, for Christ's sake.

No such foolishness will be indulged in here.

Sadly, those who believe in global warming - and who would compel us also to believe - aren't similarly constrained. A few hot days are all they ever need to get the global warming bandwagon rolling; evidently it's solar powered. Here, for example, is an Australian Associated Press report on May's weather, which in places was a little warmer than usual:

"Climate change gave much of Australia's drought-stricken east coast its warmest May on record, weather experts say.

"Global warming and an absence of significant cold changes had driven temperatures well above the monthly average, said meteorologist Matt Pearce.

According to Mr Pearce, May's temperatures were "yet another sign of the widespread climate change that we are seeing unfold across the globe."

If that's the case, shouldn't June's cold weather - coldest since 1950, remember - be a sign that widespread climate change isn't unfolding across the globe? We're using the same data here; one month's weather. And, in fact, the June sample is Australia-wide while May only highlights the east coast. Fear the dawn of a great "coldening"!

While Australia freezes, it's kinda hot in California. Again, local toastiness is evidence of global warming; one San Francisco Chronicle writer this week referred glibly to their "global-warming-heated summer".

What phenomenon was responsible for previous summers? Maybe they got by on the superheated fumes radiating off Lateline host Tony Jones.

Snow cone Tone hosted an in-studio discussion Thursday night after the ABC presented The Great Global Warming Swindle, and he was hotter than a Christina Aguilera video. "Welcome to our debate on this deeply flawed and utterly mistaken documentary, which is wrong in every regard and was made by a zombie," Jones said in introduction (I'm only lightly paraphrasing).

During an interview with filmmaker Martin Durkin Tone was visibly sweating; no easy achievement during a typical summer in the UK, to where he'd flown for his heated little chat. Perhaps Tone was anticipating the phantom British summer forecast by The Independent's environment editor, Michael McCarthy, in April:

"The possibility is growing that Britain in 2007 may experience a summer of unheard-of high temperatures, with the thermometer even reaching 40C, or 104F, a level never recorded in history.

"This would be quite outside all historical experience, but entirely consistent with predictions of climate change."

As Wimbledon watchers would be aware, what with the rainiest tournament since Jimmy Connors defeated John McEnroe in 1982, those unheard-of high temperatures remain unheard-of. Someone might conclude, therefore, that the not-hot summer is not entirely consistent with predictions of climate change.

But climate change is like Michael Moore's tracksuit - it can fit anyone. In 2005, Greenpeace rep Steven Guilbeault helpfully explained: "Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter, that's what we're dealing with."

What we're dealing with, apparently, is weather.

What will the weather be like 100 years from now? Don't ask Britain's Guardian, which, like the Independent, is full of Warmin' Normans whose warm warnings never come true. "It could be time to say goodbye to defining features of British life," the paper claimed a few months ago, "like rainy picnics and cloudy sunbathing . . ."

Other defining features of British life - screaming, inaccurate nonsense from the Guardian, for example - will never be farewelled. Cue wet Wimbledon, the coldest day for Test match cricket (7.4C) in English history, and this BBC online headline: "Where has the UK's summer gone?"

Maybe it migrated to Australia, like Augustus Owsley Stanley III, the American LSD enthusiast and manufacturer.

Possibly influenced by his product, Owsley moved to outback Queensland about twenty years ago, reportedly convinced that imminent global warming would cause - in the tradition of warm meaning cold - the whole Northern Hemisphere to be covered with ice.

Owsley, now 72, is still in Queensland, and likely not a little confused. Things didn't exactly turn out as predicted. While his former Californian haunts melt due to "global warming", this year Queensland has gone frosty. Townsville's June was its coldest since 1940; June 24 saw the coldest Brisbane morning on record.

Think of these little factoids the next time your read a report linking a hot day or month or year to global warming. And, if you run into this Owsley bloke, please ask him to quit adding things to environmentalists' water supplies.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

It´s good to be sceptical and it´s absolute nonsense to extrapolate from some seldom occurring weather phenomena (despite those accumulate in the last years) to a future trend of the global climate.

Decisive are the scientific long term studies about the climate and those point toward a global warming and not to a global cooling or maybe a constant climate in the future. Even if many people don´t want to hear this, that´s just the way it is. Unfortunately!

[dude1394]

Nevermind.


http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+fin...rticle8383.htm

Years of bad data corrected; 1998 no longer the warmest year on record

My earlier column this week detailed the work of a volunteer team to assess problems with US temperature data used for climate modeling. One of these people is Steve McIntyre, who operates the site climateaudit.org. While inspecting historical temperature graphs, he noticed a strange discontinuity, or "jump" in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000.

These graphs were created by NASA's Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data.

McKintyre notified the pair of the bug; Ruedy replied and acknowledged the problem as an "oversight" that would be fixed in the next data refresh.

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.

The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the US global warming propaganda machine could be huge.

Then again-- maybe not. I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the mainstream media.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

An unfortunate lapse, but it doesn´t change anything. Even if it has been true, 1998 would only have been an unusual aberration (like 1921 or 1934). Such specific events are not meaningful for the prediction of the global climate. The graphs of the long-time studies still point towards a warming trend:


Link


Link

Here an interesting site with all the data and graphs of the development of temperatures, from the NASA:

Link

[Usually Lurkin]

BEWARE THE COMING ICE AGE!!!
CONSENSUS TORN ASUNDER!!!

[dude1394]

1980!!!! 1980!!!! You are seriously trying to put any stock...ANY STOCK in data taken for only 27 years is ridiculous. And that's why the idea that the "consensus" closes debate is also ridiculous.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by dude1394

1980!!!! 1980!!!! You are seriously trying to put any stock...ANY STOCK in data taken for only 27 years is ridiculous. And that's why the idea that the "consensus" closes debate is also ridiculous.

And because of that I posted the second graph (data taken for about 150 years) and the Link to the NASA. The global warming skeptics also have no better data or data taken for a longer time period.

Anyhow we move in a circle with our discussion. I run out of steam to always repeat my statements we have already discussed (e.g. global cooling) and I think you feel the same. As an energy adviser I have job-related enough discussions about this topic. I for one am here to have fun and discuss basketball, so everyone should form his own opinion about this topic.

As I think the most important arguments which indicate a global warming trend and their contras have been discussed and I don´t want to convince you of the contrary, I will stop here and let the scientists debate about a science in borderland.

Amen.

[dude1394]

Heh...

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=581

Al Gore’s Zero Emissions Makes Zero Sense

It is the nature of civilization to use energy and it’s the nature of liberalism to feel bad about it. That’s my conclusion after finally sitting down to watch “An Inconvenient Truth,” the Oscar-winning documentary that has turned Al Gore into a rock star (and rock music promoter). Here’s my review: it is an overly simplistic look at a complex problem and it concludes with one of the single stupidest statements ever put on film. Yes, that’s harsh criticism. But it’s the right one, given that just before the final credits, in a segment addressing what individuals can do about global warming, the following line appears onscreen: “In fact, you can even reduce your carbon emissions to zero.”

This statement is so blatantly absurd that I am still stunned, weeks after watching Gore’s movie, that none of the dozens of smart people involved in the production of the movie – including, particularly, Gore himself – paused to wonder aloud something to the effect of, “Hey, what about breathing? Don’t we produce carbon dioxide through respiration?”

The answer, is yes, we do. Thus, by including the claim that you can “reduce your carbon emissions to zero” the film’s producers might as well have hung a sign around Gore’s neck that says “I’m an idiot.” Despite the ridiculous claim about zero emissions, Gore’s documentary has become a cultural phenomenon. It won two Academy Awards, for best documentary feature and original song. And Gore has published a popular book by the same title.

[dude1394]

No matter how long we are seperated from our British forefathers, our common sense prevails.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...ia-raise-taxes

Brits Believe Government Using Global Warming Hysteria to Raise Taxes
Photo of Noel Sheppard.
By Noel Sheppard | September 3, 2007 - 11:17 ET

If a survey found that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe lawmakers are using global warming hysteria to raise taxes, would the climate change obsessed media report it?

Highly doubtful, wouldn't you agree?

Well, Britain's Daily Mail published an article Monday that seems quite unlikely any major U.S. press outlet would dare cover for fear of contradicting the media meme of the debate being over concerning this controversial issue (emphasis added throughout, h/t Benny Peiser):

Nearly two-thirds of the public believe ministers are using environmental fears as an excuse to raise tax revenue, according to a poll.

And research suggests their cynicism is justified - with green taxes raking in £10 billion more for the Treasury than it would cost to offset the entire UK's carbon footprint.

Can you imagine Katie, Charlie, or Brian doing such a report? Regardless, the article continued:

A survey carried out by YouGov for the TPA found that only a fifth of people thought politicians were genuinely trying to change behaviours using the tax system. In contrast, 63% believed they were using the issue as an excuse to pull in more cash.

Nearly four-fifths voiced opposition to the so-called "pay as you throw" schemes floated by the Government to encourage recycling - despite previous surveys indicating a majority backed the idea.

Furthermore, could you imagine any major American press outlet reporting that the public had actually been overtaxed:

Using previous international research into climate change, the report estimated that covering the social cost of carbon emissions would have cost £11.7 billion in 2005.

But receipts from green taxes such as fuel duty, road tax and the Climate Change Levy totalled £21.9 billion. On average every household in the UK paid £400 more in levies than it cost to cover their own footprint, the TPA claimed.

It's all about the money, folks. And, our friends across the Pond know it.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

It seems, the only thing you bother about is the money (incidentally, immaterial which topic). Like your country couldn&#180;t absorb it, as many other countries too.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

It seems, the only thing you bother about is the money (incidentally, immaterial which topic). Like your country couldn´t absorb it, as many other countries too.

Money yes, guvment dictating the market forces yes, overzealous fanatics telling folks what to do to the detriment of their citizens (see california energy problems) yes, lack of understanding that they are not necessarily correct yes, lack of seeing that even if the rest of the world goes to kyoto emissions china and india will dwarf those issues yes.

If the warming zealots would talk about reality and not beat up the country they oh' so love to beat up, they'd get a more warm reception from me. But imo, it's crisis mongering.

[dude1394]

Hmmm...maybe I spoke too soon about the british and common sense.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...6/nbaby126.xml

Threat to take new-born over emotional abuse

By David Harrison, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 1:42am BST 26/08/2007

A pregnant woman has been told that her baby will be taken from her at birth because she is deemed capable of "emotional abuse", even though psychiatrists treating her say there is no evidence to suggest that she will harm her child in any way.

Social services' recommendation that the baby should be taken from Fran Lyon, a 22-year-old charity worker who has five A-levels and a degree in neuroscience, was based in part on a letter from a paediatrician she has never met.

[purplefrog]

I recently attended a symposium on Climate change and energy conservation. Dr. Gerald North of Texas A&M gave a talk discussing the reality of climate change as it is related to carbon emissions and human activity. He made a pretty convincing argument that there is scientific consensus on this topic and that as you move away from the experts in the field there is more disagreement. He also noted that every faculty member in his department at A&M, the Department of atmospheric science, has endorsed the said view. He also noted that A&M is not exactly known as a think tank of liberal thinking.

I also heard Mayor Bob Cluck (Arlington) give a presentation. Mayor Cluck is a physician. He claims that we are seeing an increase in lung cancer in people with no history of smoking and who never lived with a smoker. He made the case that the ozone/air pollution in North Texas is destroying a part of our lungs that moves toxins through our pulmonary system. The net result is deficient pulmonary capacity that leads to a build up of carcinogens. Scary stuff.

[purplefrog]

Oh yeah, one more thing. Mayor Will Wynn of Austin gave a talk summarizing how energy conservation has proved to be an economic stimulant for his city.

[dude1394]

I'm convinced. We must cover all of russia with ice. It's obviously russian mammoths that are the problem.

[purplefrog]

Russian Mammoth poopsicles must not thaw!

Now that's a cause worth backing.

[Mavdog]

I having a hard time understanding exactly what you're attempting to say about climate change dude, there is NO controversy about this issue: our planet is warming, the artic ice cap is melting and the oceans are rising.

the issue that you appear to be hammering is what exactly? that we should not be doing anything as climate change is nothing to worry about, or climate change is natural and that government should not be doing anything but rather we should just continue doing what we are doing and it will all be OK in the end?

even dubya has hopped on board the bus and recognizes the problem. Bush says "climate change is a complex, long-term challenge that will require a sustained effort over many generations".
bush's climate change policy book
why haven't you?