No Need to Panic About Global Warming?

polaris_x

again folks ... look to the link on top of page 9 .. time to move on from inlet ...

the guy posts a link that actually says the earth is cooling based on some guy who totally took information out of context from a legit meteorological office ... i then post the official statement from that office and he doesn't even read it ... he doesn't even know what global warming is ... engaging someone in a topic in which he has no interest in understanding it nor reading viewpoints counter to his indoctrination is futile ...

Godfather.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/ ... p=features


The U.N. got it wrong on Himalayan glaciers -- and the proof is finally here.

The authors of the U.N.’s climate policy guide were red-faced two years ago when it was revealed that they had inaccurately forecast that the Himalayan glaciers would melt completely in 25 years, vanishing by the year 2035.

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and director general of the Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in New Dehli, India, ultimately issued a statement offering regret for what turned out to be a poorly vetted statement.

A new report published Thursday, Feb. 9, in the science journal Nature offers the first comprehensive study of the world’s glaciers and ice caps, and one of its conclusions has shocked scientists. Using GRACE, a pair of orbiting satellites racing around the planet at an altitude of 300 miles, it comes to the eye-popping conclusion that the Himalayas have barely melted at all in the past 10 years.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/ ... z1lzutlsn4
o.k go ahead and say it "but it's on FOXnews"

Godfather.

brianlux

Godfather. wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/09/himalayan-glaciers-have-lost-no-ice-in-past-10-years-new-study-reveals/?intcmp=features


The U.N. got it wrong on Himalayan glaciers -- and the proof is finally here.

The authors of the U.N.’s climate policy guide were red-faced two years ago when it was revealed that they had inaccurately forecast that the Himalayan glaciers would melt completely in 25 years, vanishing by the year 2035.

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and director general of the Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in New Dehli, India, ultimately issued a statement offering regret for what turned out to be a poorly vetted statement.

A new report published Thursday, Feb. 9, in the science journal Nature offers the first comprehensive study of the world’s glaciers and ice caps, and one of its conclusions has shocked scientists. Using GRACE, a pair of orbiting satellites racing around the planet at an altitude of 300 miles, it comes to the eye-popping conclusion that the Himalayas have barely melted at all in the past 10 years.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/ ... z1lzutlsn4
o.k go ahead and say it "but it's on FOXnews"

Godfather.

I read it... but it's on FOX news...

Now to be more serious:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthn ... -rise.html

Melting glaciers on the Himalayas not contributing to sea level rise
The Himalayas has lost no significant ice over the past decade, according to a new study, that found melting ice from glaciers is having a much smaller effect on sea levels than previously thought.
Himalayan glaciers not melting because of climate change, report finds
The Passu glacier in the Karakorum region of Pakistan Photo: ALAMY
Louise Gray

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent

1:44PM GMT 09 Feb 2012

Comments41 Comments

Previous studies relied on physical measurements of ice caps and glaciers on the ground.

However less than 120 out of more than 160,000 across the world have actually been measured because of the difficulty of accessing freezing and remote regions.

The new study, published in Nature, used satellites to measure the loss of ice from ice caps and glaciers for the first time from 2003 to 2010.

The results found that overall ice loss from ice caps and glaciers on land, excluding the huge ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica, is adding 0.4 mm per year to sea levels compared to previous projections that estimated 1mm per year.

Mountain glaciers in Asia in particular are having a much smaller effect than thought, with a “neglible mass loss” from the Himalayas over the last ten years.

The fact that the satelllite is measuring ice much higher up the mountain range rather than concentrating on more accessible glaciers in warmer areas lower down could account for the change in estimates.

It comes after the “Himalayagate” scandal that saw the United Nations science body the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forced to admit it was a mistake to predict the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035.

Jonathan Bamber, of the Bristol Glaciology Centre at the University of Bristol, said melting glaciers are an iconic symbol of climate change.

He said the new study will help to understand the effect of climate change on the billions of people living in areas relying on melt ice and help to understand the long term effect on sea level rise.

“The contribution of glaciers and ice caps (excluding the Antarctica and Greenland peripheral GICs) to sea-level rise was less than half the value of the most recent, comprehensive estimate obtained from extrapolation of in situ measurements for 2001-05 (0.41 +/- 0.08 compared with 1.1mm yr). Second, losses for the High Mountain Asia region - comprising the Himalayas, Karakoram, Tianshan, Pamirs and Tibet - were insignificant.”

The expansion of water as the oceans warm and the melting of the major ice caps at the Poles are the main driver of sea level rise, which is predicted to rise by between 30cm and 1m by 2100.

Prof John Wahr, of the University of Colorado, pointed out that the new way of measuring glaciers using satellites known as Grace (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) is at an early stage and more work needs to be done.

The study shows 148 billion tonnes of ice, or about 39 cubic miles, was lost annually between 2003 and 2010.

This equates to some 1,000 cubic miles of ice disappearing between 2003 and 2010 – enough to cover the US in one-and-a-half feet of water.

"Our results and those of everyone else show we are losing a huge amount of water into the oceans every year," he said. "People should be just as worried about the melting of the world's ice as they were before."


It is encouraging to see that less ice is being lost at higher levels than previously thought but notice the last statements in this article. Global warming and climate science are not related to one factor alone.

brianlux

Another article stating similar concerns:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0 ... ill-rising

brianlux

And another:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... intcmp=239

inlet13

markin ball wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

he still stands wrote:

because debt is a fucking calculation in a computer... it is a construct of the mind.

No, debt is a number. In fact, it's a measurable and accurate number.

he still stands wrote:

CO2 is a tangible thing... it is a GAS that intensifies the damn sunlight. it doesn't matter if it is a "pollutant" it makes shit HOTTER.

I disagree about CO2 being tangible. By definition, you can't touch CO2. So, it's not tangible by definition. Even if it does make things hotter, it's not easily and accurately measured in the entire atmosphere. There's tons of issues with saying CO2 is the "Cause" here.

he still stands wrote:

there is a LOT that is proven in global warming science, and again... to say that debt is an "indicator" of temperature change is like this;

You don't get, and no offense, I don't think you are trying to. My point is you can't prove this 100%. Period. You can't. You are saying, this is proven in global warming science, I'm saying if it is "proven" it's BS. I work in statistics... I'm saying, no, there are theories that have some empirical backing. That's it. Yet, you guys freak when someone puts forward information to the contrary.

In all honesty, to me, the global warming backers are the equivalent of fervent religious fundamentalists. This thread is proof IMHO.

What do you mean you can't touch CO2? Am I missing something. It a physical thing, right? I can certainly touch the air I exhale.

The word used was tangible. I basically said it was improper use of the word.

Tangible means "perceived by touch". Gas, like CO2, is typically not perceived by touch. When you walk into a room you don't typically feel CO2, and say... "hey that's CO2 right there that I just felt". Hence, my point.

inlet13

he still stands wrote:

markin ball wrote:

What do you mean you can't touch CO2? Am I missing something. It a physical thing, right? I can certainly touch the air I exhale.

now we're just being fucking silly, eh?

If the guy won't even admit that "gas" is a real thing, a concept, a tangible property that actually exists within the atmostphere... and not a construct invented by the mind (like the ratio of revenue to expenses) then there's no point in discussing this anymore.

I never said gas is not a real thing and never would. Where the hell did you get that from? To be real, I find it funny that so many people here feel the need to exaggerate verbal exchanges with those they disagree with in order to try to get a point across. It shows immaturity and a weak case, in my opinion.

Anyway, what I did say was that your use of the word "tangible" was improper, in my opinion. Tangible means perceived by touch. So, even if we touch CO2, we rarely (if ever) perceive it when we touch it. Therefore, tangible is an incorrect word.

To remind you, this was in response to an exchange on the fact that Debt/GDP is more closely correlated to global temperature changes than CO2. I brought the example forward not to say Debt/GDP is the "cause", or even more important than CO2. I brought it forward because I knew people, like yourself, would try to say it's not really the "cause", just correlated. My response back is simply: what if the same is true (or a degree of it) regarding CO2? What if there's other variables that are the real cause? I mean, you all find it easy to cast Debt/GDP aside as the cause, yet statistically it's correlation is closer.

This underscores my point throughout this entire thread. Anyone who closes their minds on this issue and pretends they already know the answer is foolish.

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

again folks ... look to the link on top of page 9 .. time to move on from inlet ...

the guy posts a link that actually says the earth is cooling based on some guy who totally took information out of context from a legit meteorological office ... i then post the official statement from that office and he doesn't even read it ... he doesn't even know what global warming is ... engaging someone in a topic in which he has no interest in understanding it nor reading viewpoints counter to his indoctrination is futile ...

Ha ha ha... I don't know why I even bother responding to you after your obvious intention to be increasingly inflammatory and condescending. But, what the hell...

I still don't know what the major issues were with the article presented on page whatever it was. I asked you to supply them in your own words, because you typically feel the need to use sources to refute. Regardless, I tried your link and if you click on the link you provided, there's tons of stories there, none of which (I see) are related to that article. Seriously, try it.

Remaining on this point for a second, the original story posted in this thread, you discounted because of a few of the individuals who signed it. You didn't really get into substance. When you tried to, you used a global warming blog from what you said was "some guy". I know you may think "some guy" is a great unbiased source, but ummm... me... no, I don't.

Continuing on... We've gone through the definition of "global warming". I asked you earlier in the thread what you think I don't "get". You then put out a couple questions, which I answered. You clearly don't like my answers. If you want further clarification, I'd be happy to do so. But, honestly, your consistent "he doesn't know what it is" comes across as immature and frail.

Speaking of that, I think it should be clarified that "Global Warming" (as a word) can be interpreted in a few ways. First, it can be thought of a theory. This theory could be as broad as climate change being induced by man-made CO2. It could be more narrow as well. Alternatively, it could be thought of as simply temperature rising globally. That's it, no cause or anything. Just the words "global" and "warming"... things on earth getting hotter. I question the first. As for the second, I do believe that at times the earth gets warmer or it cools. Basically, I don't think there's a human who would ever say temperature remains static. Whether temperature can be accurately measured globally is another question entirely.

Regardless, the question in these parts generally comes down to what causes the changes in temperature. You believe that it's man-made CO2. I just showed a chart that showed Debt/GDP is more closely correlated than CO2. What did you think about that?

And if you discount a factor (Debt/GDP) that's more closely related than CO2, how can you possibly blame someone for doubting the role of CO2?

inlet13

brianlux wrote:

Accurate measurements of CO2 in the environment have been taken on Mauna Loa, Hawaii, since 1958. Charts of these measurement are available here, through this site provided by the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

These measurements were not made be fervent religious fanatics but highly trained, well educated scientists. This is basic CO2 101 stuff. The facts pertaining to CO2's role in global warming are overwhelming. The consensus of well trained, intelligent scientists that our planet is warming at an unusually high rate is overwhelming. Of these scientists, there is also a wide spread consensus that global warming is anthropogenic in nature due to human activity that has caused the release of carbon emissions into the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate.

The data provided by climate science deniers who say the earth is not heating up is underwhelming. They proceed in their beliefs (or in some cases with their economically motivated smoke screens) at great risk as do the vast majority of people don't give a damn one way or another. Good luck to us all.

I'm sure there are other locations, but don't you see what I was saying? I am basically saying that this data is taken from certain locations. It's not pervasively taken, because there's no way to do that. In that sense, there CO2 readings may be sound for a particular area, not the entire "globe". And this is called global warming, is it not? Further, how do they aggregate the CO2 readings from these locations? Do they simply do averages? Going on, how do they deal with the warming aspect in terms of measurement? Same questions...

This is what I'm saying. Even if after all of that, you find a correlation, that could mean squat in the grand scheme. But, before you get there, to have NO DOUBT, you'd have to know your data covers the globe... in full terms. I don't think it does.

brianlux

inlet13 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Accurate measurements of CO2 in the environment have been taken on Mauna Loa, Hawaii, since 1958. Charts of these measurement are available here, through this site provided by the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

These measurements were not made be fervent religious fanatics but highly trained, well educated scientists. This is basic CO2 101 stuff. The facts pertaining to CO2's role in global warming are overwhelming. The consensus of well trained, intelligent scientists that our planet is warming at an unusually high rate is overwhelming. Of these scientists, there is also a wide spread consensus that global warming is anthropogenic in nature due to human activity that has caused the release of carbon emissions into the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate.

The data provided by climate science deniers who say the earth is not heating up is underwhelming. They proceed in their beliefs (or in some cases with their economically motivated smoke screens) at great risk as do the vast majority of people don't give a damn one way or another. Good luck to us all.

I'm sure there are other locations, but don't you see what I was saying? I am basically saying that this data is taken from certain locations. It's not pervasively taken, because there's no way to do that. In that sense, there CO2 readings may be sound for a particular area, not the entire "globe". And this is called global warming, is it not? Further, how do they aggregate the CO2 readings from these locations? Do they simply do averages? Going on, how do they deal with the warming aspect in terms of measurement? Same questions...

This is what I'm saying. Even if after all of that, you find a correlation, that could mean squat in the grand scheme. But, before you get there, to have NO DOUBT, you'd have to know your data covers the globe... in full terms. I don't think it does.

I've never said I'm 100% sure of anything, but I've studied climate change enough to have very little doubt that when the vast majority of hard work, intelligent, dedicated scientists (some of whom I personally know and there are others with whom I've corresponded and believe me, they are not crack pots) with no political, religious, or monetary agenda say that anthropologically caused global warming is happening I'm not going to side with the very tiny chance that they could be wrong. I respect your right to state your opinions and you've heard mine often enough. I just don't see what your point is in trying to form an argument against the vast majority of experts in this field unless is is just for amusement or the sake of argument. Maybe you really don't believe in global warming. I'm sorry for that. Feel free to respond but this feels like dead lock to me- I see no reason for me to try to convince you that global warming is a reality. I'd like to suggest that we respectfully end this circular exercise.

SweetChildofMine

here is more fodder for climate gate including the evil Koch Brothers

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/12047/1210636-115.stm


article originally appeared in NYT

brianlux

SweetChildofMine wrote:

here is more fodder for climate gate including the evil Koch Brothers

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/12047/1210636-115.stm


article originally appeared in NYT

Thanks for posting this, SweeChildofMine. More evidence of denial- worse than denial- planetary sabotage. These people at Heartland must hate themselves and the world they live in.

Too much bad news for one morning. I'm going back to my book. :(

(But I do appreciate the post SCofM )

MotoDC

edit: holy shit didn't realize this thread was 12 pages long...and I just replied to like the second post. Deleted.

SweetChildofMine

brianlux wrote:

SweetChildofMine wrote:

here is more fodder for climate gate including the evil Koch Brothers

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/12047/1210636-115.stm


article originally appeared in NYT

Thanks for posting this, SweeChildofMine. More evidence of denial- worse than denial- planetary sabotage. These people at Heartland must hate themselves and the world they live in.

Too much bad news for one morning. I'm going back to my book. :(

(But I do appreciate the post SCofM )

Isnt that awful. They sleep at night with no concern with greedy hands resting on the lump of cash in their pockets. If I was on the Government Accountability Board MANY MANY heads would be rolling right now.

bigdvs

took less then a day to tear that apart....


“Scientific Consensus” doesn’t work? Forge Something
You know, I don’t respond to a lot of the climate science news right now. Partly, I’ve been distracted by other things, but mostly it’s because I just don’t have anything new to say. Show 130 years of data that says the Sierra Nevada snowpack isn’t actually declining? Show that the supposed disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers in 2035 (based on a typo, as first reported here at PJM) isn’t happening?

Yeah, its kind of what I expect: the warming crisis “consensus”, always supported with questionable models and piss-poor statistics, is collapsing.

This time, however, we’ve got something new and different. Starting with the warmenista DeSmogBlog, the popular story this week has been that a Heartland Institute (insert Phantom of the Opera music, pictures of bats, and a reference to the Koch Brothers) “whistleblower” had revealed “Heartland Institute’s budget, fundraising plan, its Climate Strategy for 2012 and sundry other documents (all attached) that prove all of the worst allegations that have been levelled against the organization.”

The only problem? The closest to a “smoking gun” was forged.

Apparently, someone still smarting about Climategate decided if they didn’t have a counter-Climategate, they’d make one up.

Now, what’s interesting if you look at the first post is that about a half-dozen other warmenista blogs all posted about this at very nearly the same time. Interested observers will note that it took most of November 18th 2009 for the Climategate story to get even around the climate-skeptic blogs. (We at PJM were the first US source to break the story in a major-market blog, and would have been first in the world except we lost our nerve until the BBC had it too.)

It’s almost as if it were co-ordinated.

We’ve asked Heartland for an article on this for PJM. In the mean time, see Anthony Watts’ blog Watts Up With That for all the details.

Update

megan McArdle at the Atlantic doesn’t buy it either. “Fake but Accurate” anyone?

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/02/16/sc ... something/

brianlux

"warmenista"... that's funny.


That vast majority of scientist, well trained, without political, religious or money motives are not "ista" anything. Don't forget to check out realclimate.org, I think you'll see what I mean... but you can't just skim if you want to learn.

brianlux

SweetChildofMine wrote:

brianlux wrote:

SweetChildofMine wrote:

here is more fodder for climate gate including the evil Koch Brothers

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/12047/1210636-115.stm


article originally appeared in NYT

Thanks for posting this, SweeChildofMine. More evidence of denial- worse than denial- planetary sabotage. These people at Heartland must hate themselves and the world they live in.

Too much bad news for one morning. I'm going back to my book. :(

(But I do appreciate the post SCofM )

Isnt that awful. They sleep at night with no concern with greedy hands resting on the lump of cash in their pockets. If I was on the Government Accountability Board MANY MANY heads would be rolling right now.

SweetChildofMIne, your post reminds me a this quote I read last night from Gertude Stein's book, Paris, France. I can picture her saying this here and/or elsewhere on AMT:

"And now it is once more an August and September and there is once more a crisis and once more the farmers and the gentle farmers talk about life as it is. One of the gentlest said to me the other day. We used to think not we but everybody used to think that it was kings who were ambitious who were greedy and who brought misery to the people who had no way to resist them. But now well democracy has shown us that what is evil are the grosses têtes, the big heads, all big heads are greedy for money and so they are at the head of the government and the result is misery for the people. They talk about cutting off the heads of the grosses têtes but now we know that there will be other grosses têtes and they will all be the same.

He shook his head sadly and went back to his harvesting."

(Not to get too far off topic but I have to say Paris, France is an amazing book. Amazing and amazing and amazing.)

SweetChildofMine

In any revolution what is the price of disillusionment upon its participants after some dishonest bastards has seized opportunity, taken it and has made things just as bad as before without any lasting changes, making the feeling of any effort futile?


My feeling about anyone in power once you have gained such status it is not yours to wield and misuse. Paradoxically it is the opposite, granting those power and priviledge to be shared and empowering the whole community for which "they" serve and administering the will of the people. The leader is the servant. To be the fairest judge only on what is the best decisions as the community as a whole.

---

ho-hum in an ideal world with ideal down to earth values this most likely could happen

SweetChildofMine

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."



We are in a tremendous state of sad affairs and have been for a very long time.

bigdvs

SweetChildofMine wrote:

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."



We are in a tremendous state of sad affairs and have been for a very long time.

Nice quote. Imagine if we actually stuck to the Constitution.