Weather it Means

[tiptap]

One may or may not be aware of the recent touting from Global Warming Deniers of two events. One is the recent publication in a Geophysical Journal that theoretically puts a upper limit of 1 degree rise in temperature for doubling of CO 2. The other is the correction to the NOAA data set about temperature values after the year 2000.

The second event error in the data set was discovered by Steve McIntyre, a long time industrial critic of GW argument. The technical result was to nudge the statistically identical 1934 temperature as the hottest year on record above the 1998 year for the US. (One reason I didn't update my Last Year thread for July was because NOAA, upon being notified corrected their data base publications and was down for half the month and I had to go back through my copy to see if my spreadsheets needed revision. They didn't because they do not involve temperatures per se but rankings and the record temperatures in my counts involved states at opposite ends of the country so didn't effect rankings count for those states.) Many seem to think this small change affects the IPCC data for WORLD average temperature. It does not. Compared to polar regions and dry areas in the world, the US has seen only a modest increase in temperature average. But to address this and to give perspective to my tabulations I have included a decade of data from the two hottest ten year periods on record; the 1930's and the last 10 years.

Record Cold, Very Cold, Cold, Moderate, Hot, Very Hot, Record Hot are the seven categories. Each state has 114 years of data. There are 48 states involved. If each state was random and independent then record temperatures of either hot or cold should be seen every two or three years in at least one state (see the normal expectation). (The reality is that states group together with several states from the same region reaching high or lows together at the same time, duh.) So what would I note about the graph of the two decades. The 1930's decade (think dust bowl) had the highest count of states in the moderate category the average category over the 10 years. Only by 4 but still the mode would be in the moderate category. This is in steep contrast to the last 10 years when the the count is highest in Above Normal category. The count is 53 above the moderate. The Much Above Normal category is higher than the Moderate Category by 17. There are no Much below Normal counts for the Last Decade as opposed to the Dust Bowl decade.

Most will be dismissive of the value of these temperature counts to be meaningful. Yet the temperatures of all the years correlate well with recollections of Dust Bowl heat waves or WWII cooler temperatures even to regional differences. At shorter time durations of weeks or days allow us to differentiate between Winters and Summer days by the numbers.

The two graphs of two of the hottest 10 years show that the last decade has a shifted normal curve, not just a skewed curve of the 1930's.

[tiptap]

Here is the PDF file.

[tiptap]

And, NASA corrects temperature change calculations so that now the argument that 1998 was the hottest year on record is no longer valid. I wonder if it also topples the theory that the 1990s were the hottest decade and returns the title to the 1930s. An excerpt from the TO Star:

Quote from Cochise and his "More Global Warming Fun."


The answer is NO.

[tiptap]

As to the new article published in the Geophysical Journal, there are several things that seem convenient in the argument deniers take away from this piece. But first and foremost, the article accepts that increase in CO 2 does raise temperatures and that source is of human origin. The only caveat is that the article puts a much lower limit on the rise in temperature possible, with a doubling of CO 2 to one degree Celsius. The problem with that include bad math when two normal curves and each error levels are simply arithmetically manipulated (divided). This is a somewhat technical argument but since the author's low estimate and low error levels are based on this, it is a real concern.

Secondly the author assumes that the existing data sets gives a relaxation constant for the atmosphere (very crudely how long before the up and down of temperatures turn again back the other way) that does not shift. So as such he can find the limits of effect of CO 2 increase. And maybe that is OK because the author himself states that if average temperatures do go beyond one degree Celsius that other factors are involved as well. That is exactly what the Climate Scientists are saying. The albedo drops with the lost of reflecting ice, higher temperatures seen in ocean (CO 2 is atmospheric, oceans have different relaxation constant), etc. Those are positive feed back that leads to even warmer temperatures. (The higher water vapor content, clouds, would be a counter negative feedback but overall the trend is positive.)

Since we are already at the 1 degree Celsius rise and we haven't yet doubled the CO 2 concentration that speaks volumes that we are already seeing the amplifying effect of positive feedback.

[tiptap]

For those interested the zonal predictions of the effects on weather of Global Warming are out. The effect in North America is thought to be seen in warmer winters. Though the deep SouthEast should see warmer summers and the SouthWest will be drier.

[Planetman]

http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/PlanetoftheApes/ending.jpg

[tiptap]

On May 18, CEI released two 60-second television ads "focusing on the alleged global warming crisis and the calls by some environmental groups and politicians for reduced energy use." NewsHour uncritically aired a clip of the first ad, titled "Energy," which suggests that environmentalists have falsely labeled carbon dioxide as a pollutant when, in fact, it is "essential to life." But the ad ignores that it is not C02 itself that is inherently harmful, but it is excessive discharges of the gas that scientists argue is harmful to the atmosphere. The second ad, "Glaciers," claims that recent scientific studies have proven that "Greenland's glaciers are growing" and that the "Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker, not thinner." But as the weblog Think Progress noted, the Greenland study found increased snow accumulation only on the island's interior, while separate studies conducted during the same period found significant melting among the coastal glaciers. Further, the author of the study on Antarctica, Curt Davis, a University of Missouri-Columbia electrical and computer engineering professor, has issued a public statement accusing CEI of a "deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate." He stated that, actually, "[t]he fact that the interior ice sheet is growing is a predicted consequence of global climate warming."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200605250007

[alanm]

One may or may not be aware of the recent touting from Global Warming Deniers of two events. One is the recent publication in a Geophysical Journal that theoretically puts a upper limit of 1 degree rise in temperature for doubling of CO 2. The other is the correction to the NOAA data set about temperature values after the year 2000.

The second event error in the data set was discovered by Steve McIntyre, a long time industrial critic of GW argument. The technical result was to nudge the statistically identical 1934 temperature as the hottest year on record above the 1998 year. (One reason I didn't update my Last Year thread for July was because NOAA, upon being notified corrected their data base publications and was down for half the month and I had to go back through my copy to see if my spreadsheets needed revision. They didn't because they do not involve temperatures per se but rankings and the record temperatures in my counts involved states at opposite ends of the country so didn't effect rankings count for those states.) Many seem to think this small change affects the IPCC data for WORLD average temperature. It does not. Compared to polar regions and dry areas in the world, the US has seen only a modest increase in temperature average. But to address this and to give perspective to my tabulations I have included a decade of data from the two hottest ten year periods on record; the 1930's and the last 10 years.

Record Cold, Very Cold, Cold, Moderate, Hot, Very Hot, Record Hot are the seven categories. Each state has 114 years of data. There are 48 states involved. If each state was random and independent then record temperatures of either hot or cold should be seen every two or three years in at least one state (see the normal expectation). (The reality is that states group together with several states from the same region reaching high or lows together at the same time, duh.) So what would I note about the graph of the two decades. The 1930's decade (think dust bowl) had the highest count of states in the moderate category the average category over the 10 years. Only by 4 but still the mode would be in the moderate category. This is in steep contrast to the last 10 years when the the count is highest in Above Normal category. The count is 53 above the moderate. The Much Above Normal category is higher than the Moderate Category. There are no Much below Normal counts for the Last Decade as opposed to the Dust Bowl decade.

Most will be dismissive of the value of these temperature counts to be meaningful. Yet the temperatures of all the years correlate well with recollections of Dust Bowl heat waves or WWII cooler temperatures even to regional differences. At shorter time durations of weeks or days allow us to differentiate between Winters and Summer days by the numbers.

The two graphs of two of the hottest 10 years show that the last decade has a shifted normal curve, not just a skewed curve of the 1930's.

[Brock]

Look, it's the junk scientist riding in on his one trick pony again. Yay!

[tiptap]

Actually I have one POA, Pony of the Americas. All the rest are horses.

[a1na2]

What do you of those reports that this temperature change is not global warming but a normal cycle in the earth?

I've hard both sides and the cycle theory sounds more likely.

We could always go with the concept that the magnetic North Pole is about to shift which would really mess up everything.

[tiptap]

What do you of those reports that this temperature change is not global warming but a normal cycle in the earth?

I've hard both sides and the cycle theory sounds more likely.

We could always go with the concept that the magnetic North Pole is about to shift which would really mess up everything.

You have to be very careful saying the cycle is normal. For example, I can say the progression of seasons Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring is normal. But this is simply a descriptive sentence. It has no information as to why we have periods of greater or lower temperature. That understanding involves the tilt of the axis of rotation of earth compared to the earths orbital angle of a sphere. More direct and longer periods of light hit the area turned toward the sun. Even though the earths orbit is further from the sun in the Northern Hemisphere's summer than in their winter.

So one has to have a case for what is causing the present warming. To state it is just natural is trying to duck the question.

Solar output, solar sunspots, solar energy reaching the ground, cosmic rays influencing cloud production, orbital variance and many more causes have been offered and investigated, even today. But none of them give consistent results that can account for the rise in temperature over the last half of the 20th century.

However no scientists disputes CO 2 is a Greenhouse gas. Many would wish to argue that the affect is limited do to water vapor overlap or saturation. Yet the details of the argument end up allowing for the increase heat trapped in the atmosphere to be attributed to the increase in CO 2. And the evidence is overwhelming, from isotope studies of atmospheric CO 2, that the source is burning of fossil fuels and curing of concrete. And the amount of this source over the decades easily accounts for the increase.

So the straightforward answer for increase temperatures would be the increase in this Greenhouse gas.

It's increase provides a foundation, one that isn't subject to temperature effects, that then supports higher water vapor levels that raises temperatures even higher and of course results in more and stronger weather patterns.

[Simplex3]

:sulk:
Oh noes!!!11!!!1 wer all gonna be 4 ded!!!111!!


:titus:
Jus look at da numers!!11!!!





:ZZZ:
^-- me

[tiptap]

So when do the numbers have any relevance to your judgment? I offered a conservative measure and the results for just US data showed a shift of the normal curve over the last 10 years. It would be greater if we had done this for world data. (Though it would be harder for me to tabulate.)

Are you suffering from innumeracy?

[tiptap]

So having place the data for the last 10 complete years, from 1997 to 2006, one might wonder how 2007 is stacking up. So far the year is only slightly warmer than normal. We had a particularly cold February, though there were no record lows but 7 states placed temperatures in the lowest 6% of recorded temperatures for that month. And a majority of states (29 in addition to the 7 for a total of 36) had significant below the average temperatures for those states in February.

But to balance that the month of August was a hot one. There were 9 states, mainly in the Southeast (Utah being the oddball) that had record high average temperatures for the month of August. 40 states (that includes the 9 records, 15 states had highs in the highest 6% of recorded temperatures) had higher than average temperatures for August.

This is in line with predictions that the Southeast will see their climate warm in comparison with the rest of the nation as world average temperatures rise. In addition the real evidence of rising world temperature average will not be so much in evidence with high summer temperatures. It will be seen in warm late fall and early winter weather. Last year the month of December had balmy weather in the Northeast. I suspect we will see the same this year. Why? Will the record retreat of Northern Polar Ice Cap means that there will be less influence of US weather come winter for colder weather.

The following web site gives a Map of August's temperatures until it is reset for September sometime in early October. Choose the month of August 2007 at the bottom of the page and your will get the map for each states high temperatures from which I gleaned this discussion even after October.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html

[Donger]

So, they can't accurately predict this year's hurricane season, but they CAN predict average future global temperature changes?

[tiptap]

It is like predicting the winters will be colder than summers on average. But the particulars of any certain date in some certain local can't be predicted that far out. Otherwise you'd do a better job of warning us, ahead of moves, on the petroleum market.

[tiptap]

And what are you basing your sour note on predictions of the hurricane season. We have had 7 depressions with a prediction of a maximum of 16 and 3 hurricanes with a prediction of maximum of 9 with the rest of Sept and all of October and November left in the season. Little early to decry the predictions. Though I admit they were too high last year and WAY to low two years ago. The actual number of storms world wide (not just northern Atlantic) has been up.

[Donger]

It is like predicting the winters will be colder than summers on average. But the particulars of any certain date in some certain local can't be predicted that far out. Otherwise you'd do a better job of warning us, ahead of moves, on the petroleum market.

I'd be more accurate than these people, that's for sure.

[Donger]

And what are you basing your sour note on predictions of the hurricane season. We have had 7 depressions with a prediction of a maximum of 16 and 3 hurricanes with a prediction of maximum of 9 with the rest of Sept and all of October and November left in the season. Little early to decry the predictions. Though I admit they were too high last year and WAY to low two years ago. The actual number of storms world wide (not just northern Atlantic) has been up.

Well then, let's hope that we get them during one of their banner years.

[tiptap]

More accurate in oil prices? Each month let's predict whether for your part, whether world oil prices are up or down and by how much, and the same for gasoline prices in the US. (This should give you some help since refineries have to shift for fuel oil seasonally and these timings are well known.) For my part I will predict temperature change and by how much for the US and for regions of the US.

[tiptap]

National Snow and Ice Data Center

http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_index.html

This site is were the primary information distributed across the internet about Polar Ice is published. I would point people to the eighth figure, "September 9, 2007 sea ice extent compared to perennial sea ice 1979 to 2006". It is labeled Figure 3 (but so are a few others as this collection has entries for each month and the numbering starts over). The dark gray area, an area the size of California, is Arctic Ocean that has never before seen open water. It has historically always been covered by ice.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/06/02/MNG4VQ6A0B1.DTL&type=printable


Here we have studies that indicate a change in the pace of Glacial movement on Greenland. From 2 meter to 22 meters per year.

It is winter in Antarctica. Antarctica gets about 2.5 millimeters of precipitation per year but that is averaged over the whole area. The Year of Polar studies will shift to Antarctica as the warmer weather starts in at the S. Pole. But for now NASA gives us this:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2007/antarctic_snowmelt.html

The trend in AREA is down for ice at the S. Pole. Antarctica may have MASS increase in interior ice but it may not compensate for lost AREA and MASS along the shore and in the shelves around the continent.

I guess one can pin ones hope on the positive trend in glacial building in the interior of Antarctica. And since it is all natural, what's more natural than ice melting in the sun, we don't have to consider the causes.

[HonestChieffan]

Are we dead yet? If I had to read all that crp we may be back into an ice age.

[tiptap]

I summarized the the important notions so you don't have to read the sources. And I would have stopped talking if I thought there was nothing to be gained in question of life and death and quality of life. And the scale is hard for most to deal with when compared to an individual action. So this tedious process is meant to provide physical results from increase in world temperatures. And of course the more time I say anything the more insulated to the the question of Global Warming. And that is because most people are not imaginative to see the connections that must be jettisoned and new shifts in industry that need to be pursued. No one can individually. But I would hope the predominance of evidence would convince us to collectively to explore solutions and give us impetus to invest in the new rather than to pursue old paradigms of energy needs.

[tiptap]

That time of the month when the temperature data for the previous month is out. September had 10 states with NORMAL range temperatures and the rest of the states had ABOVE average temperatures (among the 27 warmest temperatures not well above normal or a record high) excepting 3 states with much above normal temperatures accounting for 10 highest temperatures minus the record highs.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html

So while a warm month it was not a aberrant one. The problem is that most of the months for this year are this way. All of those add up to a warm year. And the truly aberrant months predicted by GW are November and December as the most likely months to record unusually high temperatures. So we will see.

For those who wish to slam the ability to predict Hurricanes the season is still going on.

Wikipedia has a nice summary chart as you scroll down on the right. You can see when predictions were published, revised and the corresponding numbers for the Colorado State studies and the NOAA numbers. We can expect 4 more named storms, 3 more hurricanes and one major hurricane before the season ends on November 30.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Atlantic_hurricane_season

[tiptap]

Arctic sea ice during the 2007 melt season plummeted to the lowest levels since satellite measurements began in 1979. The average sea ice extent for the month of September was 4.28 million square kilometers (1.65 million square miles), the lowest September on record, shattering the previous record for the month, set in 2005, by 23 percent (see Figure 1). At the end of the melt season, September 2007 sea ice was 39 percent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000 (see Figure 2). If ship and aircraft records from before the satellite era are taken into account, sea ice may have fallen by as much as 50 percent from the 1950s. The September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 is now approximately 10 percent per decade, or 72,000 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) per year (see Figure 3).

Arctic sea ice has long been recognized as a sensitive climate indicator. NSIDC Senior Scientist Mark Serreze said, “Computer projections have consistently shown that as global temperatures rise, the sea ice cover will begin to shrink. While a number of natural factors have certainly contributed to the overall decline in sea ice, the effects of greenhouse warming are now coming through loud and clear.”

One factor that contributed to this fall’s extreme decline was that the ice was entering the melt season in an already weakened state. NSIDC Research Scientist Julienne Stroeve said, "The spring of 2007 started out with less ice than normal, as well as thinner ice. Thinner ice takes less energy to melt than thicker ice, so the stage was set for low levels of sea ice this summer.”

Another factor that conspired to accelerate the ice loss this summer was an unusual atmospheric pattern, with persistent high atmospheric pressures over the central Arctic Ocean and lower pressures over Siberia. The scientists noted that skies were fairly clear under the high-pressure cell, promoting strong melt. At the same time, the pattern of winds pumped warm air into the region. While the warm winds fostered further melt, they also helped push ice away from the Siberian shore. NSIDC Research Scientist Walt Meier said, "While the decline of the ice started out fairly slowly in spring and early summer, it accelerated rapidly in July. By mid-August, we had already shattered all previous records for ice extent."

Arctic sea ice receded so much that the fabled Northwest Passage completely opened for the first time in human memory (see Figure 4). Explorers and other seafarers had long recognized that this passage, through the straits of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, represented a potential shortcut from the Pacific to the Atlantic. Roald Amundsen began the first successful navigation of the route starting in 1903. It took his group two-and-a-half years to leapfrog through narrow passages of open water, with their ship locked in the frozen ice through two cold, dark winters. More recently, icebreakers and ice-strengthened ships have on occasion traversed the normally ice-choked route. However, by the end of the 2007 melt season, a standard ocean-going vessel could have sailed smoothly through. On the other hand, the Northern Sea Route, a shortcut along the Eurasian coast that is often at least partially open, was completely blocked by a band of ice this year.

In addition to the record-breaking retreat of sea ice, NSIDC scientists also noted that the date of the lowest sea ice extent, or the absolute minimum, has shifted to later in the year. This year, the five-day running minimum occurred on September 16, 2007; from 1979 to 2000, the minimum usually occurred on September 12. NSIDC Senior Scientist Ted Scambos said, “What we’ve seen this year fits the profile of lengthening melt seasons, which is no surprise. As the system warms up, spring melt will tend to come earlier and autumn freezing will begin later.”

Changes in sea ice extent, timing, ice thickness, and seasonal fluctuations are already having an impact on the people, plants, and animals that live in the Arctic. NSIDC Research Scientist and Arctic resident Shari Gearheard said, “Local people who live in the region are noticing the changes in sea ice. The earlier break up and later freeze up affect when and where people can go hunting, as well as safety for travel.”

NSIDC scientists monitor and study Arctic sea ice year round, analyzing satellite data and seeking to understand the regional changes and complex feedbacks that we are seeing. Serreze said, “The sea ice cover is in a downward spiral and may have passed the point of no return. As the years go by, we are losing more and more ice in summer, and growing back less and less ice in winter. We may well see an ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer within our lifetimes.” The scientists agree that this could occur by 2030. Serreze concluded, “The implications for global climate, as well as Arctic animals and people, are disturbing."

http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20071001_pressrelease.html

[tiptap]

And the connection between GW and War discussed

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/18/darfurs-conflict-and-global-warming/

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon’s op-ed article tracing the vicious ethnic conflict in Darfur to a drought that was caused “at least in part from climate change” may have sounded surprising to some observers.

The U.N. chief is not the first to come up with the global warming explanation. Indeed, he simply provided the latest echo of a warning made long ago by a University of Toronto professor:

Without aggressive action to address the processes behind rising scarcities of renewable resources in poor countries, we can expect many more conflicts of the type we have described here. The international community will find itself confronted with increasingly unmanageable violence. The time to act, therefore, is now. Scholars, policy analysts, and the new administration would be wise to take heed.

The writer was Thomas Homer-Dixon, and he was talking about the Clinton Administration. The year was 1992. (PDF is here).

Since then, several leaders have taken an interest in the idea, from Britain’s foreign secretary to 11 retired American military officials to the Congress, where a bill called on the intelligence czar to report on climate change and national security.

Even the Bush administration’s charter for national security strategy (pdf) acknowledges a connection between war and warming, The Christian Science Monitor reported:

These challenges are not traditional national security concerns, such as the conflict of arms or ideologies. But if left unaddressed they can threaten national security.

In April, Mr. Homer-Dixon updated his thoughts in another op-ed article, and things haven’t improved in the meantime, to say the least. He went as far as comparing the threat of climate stress to the cold-war arms race, and the spread of nuclear arms to rogue states like North Korea.

He ended the article the way he ended the one in 1992: with a call to action, preferably now. “It’s time to put climate change on the world’s security agenda,” he wrote.

With Mr. Ban and other allies coming aboard, the time, if not now, is certainly getting closer.

[oldandslow]

tiptap...

Hang in there, buddy. Exxon is spending millions, just like marlboro did in the 1950's with cigs and lung cancer, to make sure that the ostriches will have wonderful talking points about hiding heads in sand.

[tiptap]

Warming starts to split GOP hopefuls
Candidates divided over policy solutions, but most recognize the threat
By Marc Santora NYT


While many conservative commentators and editorialists have mocked concerns about climate change, a different reality is emerging among Republican presidential contenders. It is a near-unanimous recognition among the leaders of the threat posed by global warming.

Within that camp, however, sharp divisions are developing. Senator John McCain of Arizona is calling for capping gas emissions linked to warming and higher fuel economy standards. Others, including Rudolph W. Giuliani and Mitt Romney, are refraining from advocating such limits and are instead emphasizing a push toward clean coal and other alternative energy sources.

All agree that nuclear power should be greatly expanded.

The debate has taken an intriguing twist. Two candidates appealing to religious conservatives, former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, call for strong actions to ease the effects of people on the climate, at times casting the effort in spiritual terms just as some evangelical groups have taken up the cause.

The emergence of climate change as an issue dividing Republicans shows just how far the discussion has shifted since 1997, when the Senate voted, 95 to 0, to oppose any international climate treaty that could hurt the American economy or excused China from responsibilities.

The debate among Republicans is largely not about whether people are warming the planet, but about how to deal with it.

The issue inserted itself into the presidential campaign on Friday with the announcement that Al Gore had won the Nobel Peace Prize for work highlighting the threat posed by climate change.

The leading Democratic candidates rushed to praise Mr. Gore, underlying how that party has sought to seize the issue with proposals like higher standards for fuel mileage and taxing emissions of carbon dioxide.

The issue had been gradually bubbling up among leading Republicans as top corporations, including some in petroleum, have been pushing to address it.

Mr. McCain, who acknowledges that he knew little about the climate problem when he sought his party’s presidential nomination eight years ago, held a Senate hearing on climate change in 2001 and quickly became a convert to the notion that carbon emissions were warming the planet.

In recent years, he has fought to introduce measures for caps on dangerous emissions. Last week, Mr. McCain promised to demand sharply higher fuel standards from the automobile industry.

He also promised to have the United States join the international climate treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, although only on the condition that India and China join, too. Many experts say that condition is unlikely to be met at the moment.

“I don’t know what it is going to be like the rest of my life on this planet,” Mr. McCain said at the Global Warming and Energy Solutions Conference on Saturday in Manchester, N.H. “But I can tell you this. I have had enough experience and enough knowledge to believe that unless we reverse what is happening on this planet, my dear friends, we are going to hand our children a planet that is badly damaged.”

Mr. Romney and Mr. Giuliani say little about the potential dangers of climate change and almost nothing about curbing emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide. They talk almost exclusively about the need for independence from foreign oil as a necessity for national security.

Fred D. Thompson, after mocking the threat in April, said more recently that “climate change is real” and suggested a measured approach until more was known about it.

In the tangled Republican race, Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Romney have been much more hesitant to criticize policies of President Bush, who in his two presidential campaigns said that more study of climate change was needed before imposing restrictions on heat-trapping gases.

On the campaign trail, Mr. Giuliani has said, “I do believe there’s global warming,” but in a speech on energy in the summer in Waterloo, Iowa, he had hardly a word about the environment. Instead, he focused on tapping domestic sources of energy, including coal, which is considered a major contributor to global warming.

“Ethanol, biodiesel, clean coal, nuclear power, more refineries, conservation,” Mr. Giuliani said. “There’s no one single solution. But each one of these has to be expanded 10 percent, 15 percent, 20 percent.

“America has more coal reserves than Saudi Arabia has oil reserves. Aren’t we safer and better off relying on our own coal reserves than on a part of the world that is a threat to us?”

Mr. Romney has voiced an almost identical theme, with the two candidates saying they will lead an effort to make the United States energy independent that will be on the scale of putting a man on the Moon or the race to build an atomic bomb.

To illustrate the commitment to new fuel sources, a clip of Mr. Romney’s forum in April in Derry, N.H., has been posted on his campaign’s Web site.

“That is much broader than one form of fuel like ethanol,” Mr. Romney said. “I believe we have to be developing more energy sources ourselves, which would include offshore drilling and drilling in ANWR, nuclear power, biodiesel, biofuel, ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, probably liquefied coal. We have enormous supplies of coal.”

Mr. McCain said in his speech on Saturday that he wanted to push for alternative fuels, but he implied that more needed to be done to protect the environment.

One priority, he said, would be to establish “cap and trade,” a system in which corporations are essentially rewarded for deep cuts in harmful emissions.

Mr. McCain has written a bill on that and forced two votes, losing both.

In addition to calling for improved fuel efficiency, which he repeated last week in a speech in Detroit, Mr. McCain said he supported an effort to develop an automobile battery that can travel 150 to 200 miles without a charge and would finance the research and development for that.

The senator opposes a measure that many environmentalists desire, a carbon tax, most likely as another gasoline tax. He told the warming and energy conference that he generally opposed new taxes but that he also believed that poor workers who tended to commute to work longer distances would be disproportionately affected.

Mr. McCain said it took a few months of hearings as a member of the Senate Commerce Committee after the 2000 election for him to realize the threat from climate change. Asked about Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Romney’s commitment to energy independence, he said voters should look at their records.

“What were they doing in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006?” Mr. McCain asked.

Copyright © 2007 The New York Times
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21337492/

[tiptap]

I should mention the the campaigning 1999 Bush also stated Global Warming was real but the 2000 Cheney discussion of energy policy didn't give lip service to the threat.

Mr. Romney and Mr. Giuliani both seek oil independence under the guise of reducing the Carbon footprint. Their suggestions are NOT focused upon restricting CO 2 emissions at all. They use the term to deal ONLY with our dependence upon ME oil for energy needs sifting to a more reduced source of fossil fuel in COAL. Not an answer. The Nuclear answer is a solution to both ME dependency and emissions.

[tiptap]

bumb

[tiptap]

That time of month again. The specter of GW in evidence with temperatures in the month of October again were high. 5 Record Highs, 18 states with Much Above Normal Temperatures. Indeed only 7 states had temperatures Normal or Below Normal in the Month of October. Within the last 12 months we have had twice the rate of above normal, much above normal and 5 times the number of record high temperatures as one would expect in a totally random process. At the same time we have had NO RECORD LOWS. That is more telling. You can't find that kind of sustained count even during the Dust Bowl years.

I predict that November and December will continue this trend. At least fuel costs for heating will be kept lower in the Northeast for the next two months.

God is Green.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21656644/

So is the Prince of Wales.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/south_east/7083145.stm

[Cochise]

Can't talk now, ice caps melted and flooded my basement. Bailing.

[a1na2]

You have to be very careful saying the cycle is normal. For example, I can say the progression of seasons Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring is normal. But this is simply a descriptive sentence. It has no information as to why we have periods of greater or lower temperature. That understanding involves the tilt of the axis of rotation of earth compared to the earths orbital angle of a sphere. More direct and longer periods of light hit the area turned toward the sun. Even though the earths orbit is further from the sun in the Northern Hemisphere's summer than in their winter.

So one has to have a case for what is causing the present warming. To state it is just natural is trying to duck the question.

Solar output, solar sunspots, solar energy reaching the ground, cosmic rays influencing cloud production, orbital variance and many more causes have been offered and investigated, even today. But none of them give consistent results that can account for the rise in temperature over the last half of the 20th century.

However no scientists disputes CO 2 is a Greenhouse gas. Many would wish to argue that the affect is limited do to water vapor overlap or saturation. Yet the details of the argument end up allowing for the increase heat trapped in the atmosphere to be attributed to the increase in CO 2. And the evidence is overwhelming, from isotope studies of atmospheric CO 2, that the source is burning of fossil fuels and curing of concrete. And the amount of this source over the decades easily accounts for the increase.

So the straightforward answer for increase temperatures would be the increase in this Greenhouse gas.

It's increase provides a foundation, one that isn't subject to temperature effects, that then supports higher water vapor levels that raises temperatures even higher and of course results in more and stronger weather patterns.


Since temperature recording has not been something there is a sustained record of there is no way that Delbert Gore can actually validate the temperatures as being attributed by mankind. He does not have any record of what has happened on the earth for any more than a few hundred years at best.

What would the data tell you if you could see the same pattern repeating itself over thousands of years? The earth has been around for a long time, mankind has been on the earth for a long time. Assuming the earth has "recycled" through the time mankind has been here you need to ask yourself about what happened to create our Oil reserves. A great cataclysmic event had to happen to cause the dinosaurs to become extinct. If you are of the same mindset as many here there is no way that man could have caused anything back then to raise the levels that are now being used as a crisis situation for global warming.

How advanced was mankind 20,000 years ago? What kinds of machines had they invented? What were their emissions? Did they have automobiles that were polluting the atmosphere? Did they cause the end of their civilization because of their mechanized society?

It might seem a stretch, but we don't know what happened in the distant past and what impact it had on the atmosphere, if any. Likewise we don't know that our current state of the atmosphere is due to anything mankind has done or if it is actually a naturally occurring change in the temperature of the earth.

[tiptap]

Since temperature recording has not been something there is a sustained record of there is no way that Delbert Gore can actually validate the temperatures as being attributed by mankind. He does not have any record of what has happened on the earth for any more than a few hundred years at best.

What would the data tell you if you could see the same pattern repeating itself over thousands of years? The earth has been around for a long time, mankind has been on the earth for a long time. Assuming the earth has "recycled" through the time mankind has been here you need to ask yourself about what happened to create our Oil reserves. A great cataclysmic event had to happen to cause the dinosaurs to become extinct. If you are of the same mindset as many here there is no way that man could have caused anything back then to raise the levels that are now being used as a crisis situation for global warming.

How advanced was mankind 20,000 years ago? What kinds of machines had they invented? What were their emissions? Did they have automobiles that were polluting the atmosphere? Did they cause the end of their civilization because of their mechanized society?

It might seem a stretch, but we don't know what happened in the distant past and what impact it had on the atmosphere, if any. Likewise we don't know that our current state of the atmosphere is due to anything mankind has done or if it is actually a naturally occurring change in the temperature of the earth.

I'll try again. Temperature CAN be measured by a mercury thermometer. But there are other ways that the physical traits change in response to higher levels of undirected energy in the form of heat. Two different metals will expand differentially say in a thermostat. Now there are electrical resistance changes that can determine a number that can be related to the degrees expansion on a mercury thermometer and many others.

So there are PROXY physical measurements that also correlate with rise and fall in temperature from the past fixed in both biological and geological structures. (Tree rings size can relate to temperature.) The relative levels of the different Oxygen Isotopes that get fixed in Glaciers can be used to indicate temperatures and certainly can be excellent in indicating trends up or down in temperatures.

When we look at PROXY measurements and see rise or fall in climate temperatures we need to account for the larger or smaller amount of energy in earths weather system (atmospheric and oceanic for the most part). Two primary sources of heat are the Radioactive decay and Residue Heat inside the Earth (Volcanism) but this source is dwarfed by the energy provided by the SUN. Variations in solar energy hitting the earth can be explained by variability in the sun (over time the sun gets warmer absolutely on top of a sinusoidal pattern). It can also be explained by variability in the distance and procession of EARTH's orbit.

Using physics we can get a temperature prediction for earth based upon the above factors. It falls short in getting the temperature correct. Not because the methods are wrong because they are fundamental physics laws. But because we did not account for RE-RADIATION of heat from absorption emission properties of the ATMOSPHERE. This is the GREENHOUSE EFFECT. Add that in and present climate temperature are right on. There is no disputing that the GREENHOUSE EFFECT IS REAL. The Air Force measured this directly in order to use the data for infra red missiles.

In the past OTHER THINGS like the distance changes between earth and sun would INITIATE higher temperatures (and lower) and IN RESPONSE Greenhouse Gases would rise (measured by glacial and other proxy determinations) lagging but then INCREASING FURTHER rise in temperatures that not accounted for by the change in distance alone.

PRESENTLY: 1.We are in a periodic SOLAR DROP in energy. LESS SOLAR ENERGY is hitting the top of the atmosphere. 2. Direct measurements of SOLAR ENERGY hitting the ground is being reduced over even that accounted for by the periodic solar activity. This is referred to as Solar Dimming. SMOG. 3. But despite this the temperatures are going up now. At the same time the measurements of CARBON DIOXIDE has been going up and the isotopes indicate it is not of biological origin but the burning of fossil fuels.
4. Knowing that GreenHouse Effect is real and CO 2 is rising this is the clear straightforward explanation for the rise in temperatures.


Finally I don't want to hear it is natural. I want to hear a real explanation for why a rise in GreenHouse gases CANNOT lead to higher temperatures since that is fundamental to absorption/emission spectroscopy.

[tiptap]

What do "climate sceptics" believe?

You might think that you know the answer, having heard, seen and read numerous counter-blasts aimed at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) over the course of this year, as the three components of its landmark climate assessment were published.

Despite having reported on climate change for more than a decade, I realised at the beginning of the year that I was not entirely sure.

On a sceptic's blog I would read "global warming isn't happening". Then I would read an op-ed saying "warming is happening but it's entirely natural". Later, someone would tell me "it is happening, it is caused by greenhouse gases, but the effect is so small it won't matter".

Either there was a genuine divergence in the views of the sceptical science community, I concluded, or their analyses were somehow getting scrambled in transmission through blogs, newsletters, and the mainstream media.
I hope it will scotch the view that sceptical scientists generally believe the Earth's surface is not getting warmerWhat sceptics believe is an important question, because their voices are heard in governments, editors' offices, boardrooms, and - most importantly - the street.
Their arguments sway the political approaches of some important countries, notably the US, which in turn influence the global discussions on whether to do anything about rising CO2 levels.
So I decided I had better try to find out.
Into the ether

The best approach seemed to be the simplest - just ask them. But first I had to define who I meant by "them".
Rather than choosing a group of people myself, I decided to use a group which had already been compiled by sceptics' organisations.
In April 2006, a group of 61 self-styled "accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines" wrote an open letter to Canada's newly elected prime minister, Stephen Harper, asking his government to initiate hearings into the scientific foundations of the nation's climate change plan.
The letter, complete with a list of signatories, was published in Canada's Financial Post newspaper.
Many, though not all, of the signatories were indeed scientists active in fields relating to climate science. And the group was large enough to suggest I might receive a workable number of replies.
So I compiled a questionnaire about their views on climate change science, with a dose of politics thrown in, and mailed it out.
I cannot guarantee that all 61 received it; I was unable to obtain contact details for one person, and was less than certain that I had correct details for three of the others.
On the other hand, I was fairly sure that the questionnaire would be spread through the blogosphere and - what should we call it? - the emailosphere? - which turned out to be so.

Filling in
I went into this exercise not completely knowing what to expect; I guessed I would receive a wide variety of responses, and I was right.
Fourteen of the group filled in the questionnaire, in varying degrees of detail; another 11 replied without filling it in.
Of these, some sent links to articles explaining their position. Some replied with academic papers, for which I am grateful, especially to Doug Hoyt who mailed a number of references that I had not previously seen.
Some said this was a worthwhile exercise. Some, in circulated emails, said the opposite, in terms which were sometimes so frank that others of the group apologised on their behalf.

Down to details


So to the results. Ten out of the 14 agreed that the Earth's surface temperature had risen over the last 50 years; three said it had not, with one equivocal response.
Nine agreed that atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide had risen over the last century, with two saying decidedly that levels had not risen. Eight said that human factors were principally driving the rise.
Twelve of the fourteen agreed that in principle, rising greenhouse gas concentrations should increase temperatures.






But eight cited the Sun as the principal factor behind the observed temperature increase.
And nine said the "urban heat island" effect - where progressive urbanisation around weather stations has increased the amount of heat generated locally - had affected the record of historical temperatures.
Eleven believed rising greenhouse gas concentrations would not result in "dangerous" climate change, and 12 said it would be unwise for the global community to restrain production of carbon dioxide and the other relevant gases, with several suggesting that such restraint would bring economic disruption.


One of my more gracious respondents, Arthur Rorsch, suggested that rising CO2 might help "green" the world, with increases in food supply.
There was general disdain for the Kyoto Protocol, with respondents split roughly equally between saying it was the wrong approach to an important issue, and a meaningless exercise because there was no point in trying to curb emissions.
There was general agreement, too, that computer models which try to project the climate of the future are unreliable. Several respondents said the climate system was inherently unpredictable and therefore impossible to model in a computer.
The other questions produced sets of responses which I could not boil down into anything approaching a consensus view.

Warm agreement
I do not think that anyone would take this exercise as a comprehensive assessment of the views of climate sceptics, which is probably an impossible task.
They are a disparate community, and if you put any two together they would surely disagree on some aspect of the science - just as would any two researchers you picked out from any discipline.
But I hope it provides a snapshot of where the scientific disagreements that sceptics have with the IPCC begin and end - for one thing, scotching the view (prevalent in my in-box) that sceptical scientists generally believe the Earth's surface is not really getting warmer.
The IPCC and many of the world's climate scientists would, of course, profoundly disagree with the conclusions evidenced by this small group, and I have linked to some articles which detail some of the science behind their disagreement.

This exercise would not be complete without discussing some of the non-scientific comments and responses to my mailout, which represent a window into the suspicion, indignation and politicisation surrounding climate science today.

That, though, is for later in the week.

Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk[FONT=arial black][SIZE=3]

[Cochise]

TLDR

[tiptap]

"So to the results. Ten out of the 14 agreed that the Earth's surface temperature had risen over the last 50 years; three said it had not, with one equivocal response.
Nine agreed that atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide had risen over the last century, with two saying decidedly that levels had not risen. Eight said that human factors were principally driving the rise.
Twelve of the fourteen agreed that in principle, rising greenhouse gas concentrations should increase temperatures."

This quote is my case against Global Warmer deniers. The consensus among deniers is that global warming is real. That Greenhouse gases have risen. That the rise is do to human enterprises. That rising Greenhouse Gases should lead to higher temperatures. And yet somehow this isn't the cause.

Don't like governmental direct solutions then find the free market solution by taxing CO 2 and forcing the market to find solutions.

[tiptap]

All surveys have to deal with potential low response rates. Would you like me to do the statistical significance levels for a 14/61 response rate. That is actually a pretty good rate.