PDA

View Full Version : News Massive ice island breaks off Greenland


T-post Tom
08-08-2010, 02:48 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/08/07/greenland.ice.island/index.html?hpt=C2

Massive ice island breaks off Greenland

(CNN) -- A piece of ice four times the size of Manhattan island has broken away from an ice shelf in Greenland, according to scientists in the U.S.

The 260 square-kilometer (100 square miles) ice island separated from the Petermann Glacier in northern Greenland early on Thursday, researchers based at the University of Delaware said.

The ice island, which is about half the height of the Empire State Building, is the biggest piece of ice to break away from the Arctic icecap since 1962 and amounts to a quarter of the Petermann 70-kilometer floating ice shelf, according to research leader Andreas Muenchow.

"The freshwater stored in this ice island could keep the Delaware or Hudson rivers flowing for more than two years. It could also keep all U.S. public tap water flowing for 120 days," Muenchow said.

Muenchow's team is studying ice in the Nares Strait separating Greenland from Canada, about 1,000 kilometers south of the North Pole.

Satellite data from NASA's MODIS-Aqua satellite revealed the initial rupture which was confirmed within hours by Trudy Wohlleben of the Canadian Ice Service, according to the University of Delaware website.


Muenchow said the island could block the Nares Strait as it drifts south, or break into smaller islands and continue towards the open waters of the Atlantic.

"In Nares Strait, the ice island will encounter real islands that are all much smaller in size," he said.

"The newly born ice island may become land-fast, block the channel, or it may break into smaller pieces as it is propelled south by the prevailing ocean currents. From there, it will likely follow along the coasts of Baffin Island and Labrador, to reach the Atlantic within the next two years."

Environmentalists say ice melt is being caused by global warming with Arctic temperatures in the 1990s reaching their warmest level of any decade in at least 2,000 years, according to a study published in 2009.

Current trends could see the Arctic Ocean become ice free in summer months within decades, researchers predict.

Guru
08-08-2010, 02:51 PM
oh noez!!!!!!1111!!!!!

T-post Tom
08-08-2010, 03:04 PM
oh noez!!!!!!1111!!!!!

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l135/fritzer24/SadPenguin.png

Bowser
08-08-2010, 03:25 PM
oh noez!!!!!!1111!!!!!

....says the guy living far enough inland to not be affected by rising sea levels. ;)

ChiefaRoo
08-08-2010, 03:32 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/08/07/greenland.ice.island/index.html?hpt=C2

Massive ice island breaks off Greenland

(CNN) -- A piece of ice four times the size of Manhattan island has broken away from an ice shelf in Greenland, according to scientists in the U.S.

The 260 square-kilometer (100 square miles) ice island separated from the Petermann Glacier in northern Greenland early on Thursday, researchers based at the University of Delaware said.

The ice island, which is about half the height of the Empire State Building, is the biggest piece of ice to break away from the Arctic icecap since 1962 and amounts to a quarter of the Petermann 70-kilometer floating ice shelf, according to research leader Andreas Muenchow.

"The freshwater stored in this ice island could keep the Delaware or Hudson rivers flowing for more than two years. It could also keep all U.S. public tap water flowing for 120 days," Muenchow said.

Muenchow's team is studying ice in the Nares Strait separating Greenland from Canada, about 1,000 kilometers south of the North Pole.

Satellite data from NASA's MODIS-Aqua satellite revealed the initial rupture which was confirmed within hours by Trudy Wohlleben of the Canadian Ice Service, according to the University of Delaware website.


Muenchow said the island could block the Nares Strait as it drifts south, or break into smaller islands and continue towards the open waters of the Atlantic.

"In Nares Strait, the ice island will encounter real islands that are all much smaller in size," he said.

"The newly born ice island may become land-fast, block the channel, or it may break into smaller pieces as it is propelled south by the prevailing ocean currents. From there, it will likely follow along the coasts of Baffin Island and Labrador, to reach the Atlantic within the next two years."

Environmentalists say ice melt is being caused by global warming with Arctic temperatures in the 1990s reaching their warmest level of any decade in at least 2,000 years, according to a study published in 2009.

Current trends could see the Arctic Ocean become ice free in summer months within decades, researchers predict.

"Shit, I've seen bigger" - Four Horsemen

3rd&48ers
08-08-2010, 03:34 PM
....says the guy living far enough inland to not be affected by rising sea levels. ;)

only the part above the waterline would increase the depth of the water

Saulbadguy
08-08-2010, 03:35 PM
Are we allowed to make global warming jokes like dumbass rednecks do when the temperature is below 0? Can I get a ruling?

Guru
08-08-2010, 03:39 PM
....says the guy living far enough inland to not be affected by rising sea levels. ;)

:D

Bowser
08-08-2010, 03:40 PM
Are we allowed to make global warming jokes like dumbass rednecks do when the temperature is below 0? Can I get a ruling?I vote hell yes.

Guru
08-08-2010, 03:42 PM
Are we allowed to make global warming jokes like dumbass rednecks do when the temperature is below 0? Can I get a ruling?

I don't see any reason why not. It's all in good fun anyway.

Dave Lane
08-08-2010, 04:25 PM
Can it play NT?

T-post Tom
08-08-2010, 05:44 PM
Can it play NT?

ROFL

Phobia
08-08-2010, 05:51 PM
Are we allowed to make global warming jokes like dumbass rednecks do when the temperature is below 0? Can I get a ruling?

Well, you can unless you caught the part about how a larger island of ice broke off in 1962. I'm pretty sure nobody was screaming about global warming in 1962.

Saulbadguy
08-08-2010, 05:55 PM
Well, you can unless you caught the part about how a larger island of ice broke off in 1962. I'm pretty sure nobody was screaming about global warming in 1962.

Oh, well - that must disprove it all then!

T-post Tom
08-08-2010, 06:12 PM
Well, you can unless you caught the part about how a larger island of ice broke off in 1962. I'm pretty sure nobody was screaming about global warming in 1962.

Maybe this will help: http://news.discovery.com/earth/giant-glacier-breaks-on-anniversary-of-global-warming.html

Thig Lyfe
08-08-2010, 06:34 PM
http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l135/fritzer24/SadPenguin.png

Why would a penguin be sad about stuff happening in the Arctic?

T-post Tom
08-08-2010, 06:42 PM
Why would a penguin be sad about stuff happening in the Arctic?

They do not discriminate in their love of ice and all things cold. :) [Good catch, btw. Rep.]

SNR
08-08-2010, 07:10 PM
The ice just couldn't handle the added weight from your mom's vacation in Greenland

GoHuge
08-08-2010, 09:13 PM
Oh, well - that must disprove it all then!Yes all the nay sayers say that global warming is just a theory............as is gravity :shake:.

The morons that say global warming is a myth because it gets really cold in the winter might as well say that the sun doesn't exist because it's dark out right now. It's just as stupid.

Phobia
08-08-2010, 09:46 PM
As with all politicized issues, the far right is extreme and the far left is extreme. They're both overselling their positions and making themselves look ridiculous. Do I believe there are some elements of global warming? Yes, I do. Do I think it's as bad as the left would have us believe? Absolutely not. Do I believe there is zero evidence as the right would have us believe? Absolutely not.

gblowfish
08-08-2010, 09:47 PM
I went thru about that much ice over the weekend.

CaliforniaChief
08-08-2010, 09:50 PM
Yes all the nay sayers say that global warming is just a theory............as is gravity :shake:.

The morons that say global warming is a myth because it gets really cold in the winter might as well say that the sun doesn't exist because it's dark out right now. It's just as stupid.

That is potentially the dumbest post I've read on CP in some time. Read a book or mix in something other than another run through of "An Inconvenient Truth."

The objections to global warming aren't that it's really cold in the winter. And the tactic of making it sound like those of us who are skeptics to a cause propagated by special interest groups and excessive fear-mongering is really old.

Baconeater
08-08-2010, 09:54 PM
As with all politicized issues, the far right is extreme and the far left is extreme. They're both overselling their positions and making themselves look ridiculous. Do I believe there are some elements of global warming? Yes, I do. Do I think it's as bad as the left would have us believe? Absolutely not. Do I believe there is zero evidence as the right would have us believe? Absolutely not.
What a cop-out. You need to pick a side and be willing to fight to the death over it.

Guru
08-08-2010, 09:57 PM
What a cop-out. You need to pick a side and be willing to fight to the death over it.

LMAO

BillSelfsTrophycase
08-08-2010, 09:59 PM
Yes all the nay sayers say that global warming is just a theory............as is gravity :shake:.

The morons that say global warming is a myth because it gets really cold in the winter might as well say that the sun doesn't exist because it's dark out right now. It's just as stupid.

http://ui25.gamespot.com/2360/notlolwutpearuw5_2.jpg




http://carnalreason.org/images/feb08/globaltemp.jpg

Bwana
08-08-2010, 10:03 PM
I vote hell yes.

I 2nd that!

KCFalcon59
08-08-2010, 10:09 PM
I believe in Climate Change.

Spring changes to Summer
Summer changes to Fall
Fall changes to Winter
Winter changes to Spring.

It's been doing that for as far back as I can remember. I've heard it even did this before I was born. Some winters were colder, Some springs warmer, some summers hotter, some falls cooler. It changes all the time.

The hysteria that has been created is just a ploy to control our lives and to extort more money from the populate.

Lonewolf Ed
08-08-2010, 10:35 PM
I believe in Climate Change.

Spring changes to Summer
Summer changes to Fall
Fall changes to Winter
Winter changes to Spring.

It's been doing that for as far back as I can remember. I've heard it even did this before I was born. Some winters were colder, Some springs warmer, some summers hotter, some falls cooler. It changes all the time.

The hysteria that has been created is just a ploy to control our lives and to extort more money from the populate.

Exactly. In the KC Star sports page, on the first of every month, they show record highs and lows set in KC for each day. August, very surprisingly, has over 70 degrees of variation from the hottest temperature recorded to the lowest, and such data has only been gathered for a short time, less than 200 years. So, the conclusion is: some days, it's going to be hot; some days it's going to be cold; some days it's going to be unseasonably hot or cold. It's always been that way, and always will.

Phobia
08-08-2010, 10:49 PM
What a cop-out. You need to pick a side and be willing to fight to the death over it.

Indeed. I've found that I just don't care enough about political crap to concern myself with it significantly. Besides, whose mind am I doing to change?

cdcox
08-08-2010, 11:29 PM
The Chiefs have moved their practice times to later in the day to avoid the effects of Climate Change.

Ugly Duck
08-08-2010, 11:30 PM
And the tactic of making it sound like those of us who are skeptics to a cause propagated by special interest groups and excessive fear-mongering is really old.

But... but the finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. No remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change. I guess we could postulate that science itself is a special interest....

BIG_DADDY
08-08-2010, 11:38 PM
Awesome!!!

BIG_DADDY
08-08-2010, 11:41 PM
The Chiefs have moved their practice times to later in the day to avoid the effects of Climate Change.

Well it's a crisis don't you know?

Guru
08-09-2010, 07:26 AM
But... but the finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. No remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change. I guess we could postulate that science itself is a special interest....

yawn

tiptap
08-09-2010, 08:10 AM
I will just say this. Philosophically Global Warming seems radical. After all it hasn't happened before that man has contributed to higher energy levels in the atmosphere.

But scientifically it is a very conservative view. Thermodynamics gives us a prediction of the temperature of radiating black bodies (sun being a thermodynamic Black Body so if you are confused about what the term really means look it up) for the planets. All but one planet is right on the linear predictions related to distance from the sun. (And no the big exception is not earth.) But that prediction only get temperatures to say -40 from -273 and not the 10C that is the average temperature on Earth. For a hundred years now since proposed first by Arrehnius, Greenhouse Gas Effect and been the robust answer to that last 50 degrees. And the big exception to the Thermodynamic prediction of planetary temperatures also is due to Greenhouse Gas Effect on the planet Venus.

There are small contributions due to internal heat in the Earth and tidal heating but for 100 years the two major contributions to temperature in the atmosphere have been Solar Radiation and Greenhouse Effect. So the conservative scientific position is to look to these areas first for explanations of changes in climatic average temperatures.

loochy
08-09-2010, 08:14 AM
Yes all the nay sayers say that global warming is just a theory............as is gravity :shake:.

The morons that say global warming is a myth because it gets really cold in the winter might as well say that the sun doesn't exist because it's dark out right now. It's just as stupid.

Yes all the yay sayers say that global warming is absolutely real............as is gravity :shake:.

The morons that say global warming is a real because it gets really hot in the summer might as well say that the sun doesn't exist because it's dark out right now. It's just as stupid.




See how that works? It seems equally as stupid from our point of view too.

Hydrae
08-09-2010, 08:57 AM
I believe in Climate Change.

Spring changes to Summer
Summer changes to Fall
Fall changes to Winter
Winter changes to Spring.

It's been doing that for as far back as I can remember. I've heard it even did this before I was born. Some winters were colder, Some springs warmer, some summers hotter, some falls cooler. It changes all the time.

The hysteria that has been created is just a ploy to control our lives and to extort more money from the populate.

Must be nice having 4 seasons. Here in Texas we have Summer and Not Summer.

Brainiac
08-09-2010, 09:29 AM
But... but the finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. No remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change. I guess we could postulate that science itself is a special interest....

Climatologists Reject Media Claims of Global Warming Consensus

Published In: Environment & Climate News > August 2005
Publication date: 08/01/2005
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

Leading climatologists spent the month of June fighting false proclamations from non-scientists claiming scientists have reached agreement that catastrophic global warming is occurring.


Alarmists Claim Debate Over

On June 1, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) claimed "the debate is over" and global warming alarmists' predictions had carried the day.

The Natural Resources Defense Council on June 9 declared, "The world's leading scientists now agree that global warming is real and is happening right now. According to their forecasts, extreme changes in climate could produce a future in which erratic and chaotic weather, melting ice caps and rising sea levels usher in an era of drought, crop failure, famine, flood and mass extinctions."

On June 13, USA Today declared, "The debate's over: Globe is Warming." In support of its claim, the newspaper cited the positions of some left-leaning religious groups, some corporations who will reap a financial windfall from a switch to alternative fuel sources, and some politicians.


Scientists Disagree

While each of the above claims from non-scientists received significant media coverage, leading climatologists spent the month of June rebutting such proclamations.

Atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, sent a letter to the editor of USA Today directly refuting its claim. "Your editorial ... claim[s] the global warming debate is over. Not so," wrote Singer.

Singer wrote, "Sea level will continue to rise by only seven inches per century as it has for thousands of years no matter what we do or what the EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] says. And temperatures in the next 100 years will likely rise by less than one degree F--not exactly a catastrophe."

Added Singer in a subsequent letter to the Canadian media, "Thousands of scientists from many countries now fully understand that Kyoto and other efforts to control human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are ineffective and entirely unfounded scientifically.

"Even if you ignore the enormous cost of Kyoto (estimated recently by Prof. George Taylor of Oregon State University--see http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p628.htm--at one trillion U.S. dollars a year for full implementation in OECD countries), climate science research is rapidly moving AWAY from the hypothesis that the human release of greenhouse gases, specifically CO2, is in any way significantly contributing to global climate change."


Sun Called Primary Cause

"If we just look at the historical data, there is a scientific consensus that the global mean temperature has risen modestly during the twentieth century," said Myron Ebell, director of global warming and environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "The impacts have been small and probably beneficial in aggregate. This historical data puts the onus of demonstration on those who think this gradual warming trend will accelerate and lead to dire consequences."

The controlling driver of global temperature fluctuations, according to Dr. Benny Peiser of England's John Moore's University, is solar ray activity. "Six eminent researchers from the Russian Academy of Science and the Israel Space Agency have just published a startling paper in one of the world's leading space science journals. The team of solar physicists claims to have come up with compelling evidence that changes in cosmic ray intensity and variations in solar activity have been driving much of the Earth's climate," Peiser was quoted as saying in the May 17 National Post.

Moreover, reports Peiser, Jan Veizer, one of Canada's top earth scientists, published a comprehensive review of recent findings and concluded, "empirical observations on all time scales point to celestial phenomena as the principal driver of climate, with greenhouse gases acting only as potential amplifiers."

Added Peiser, "In fact, the explicit and implicit rejection of the 'consensus' is not restricted to individual scientists. It also includes distinguished scientific organizations such as the Russian Academy of Science and the U.S. Association of State Climatologists, both of which are highly skeptical of the whole idea."


False Consensus Was Predicted

Indeed, back in November 2004, German climatologist Hans von Storch, director of the GKSS Institute for Coastal Research (IfK) in Geesthacht, Germany, foresaw that claims of alarmist consensus would be made by non-scientists and even some scientists.

Von Storch, who has yet to side with either alarmists or skeptics, warned, "We need to respond openly to the agenda-driven advocates, not only skeptics but also alarmists, who misuse their standing as scientists to pursue their private value-driven agendas."


Media Echo Scariest Claims

Noting the propensity of large media organizations to echo the alarmists' claims, von Storch wrote, "Judgments of solid scientific findings are often not made with respect to their immanent quality but on the basis of their alleged or real potential as a weapon by 'skeptics' in a struggle for dominance in public and policy discourse."

Ebell agrees: "If the debate is over, why do they exaggerate so much? It seems that once some scientist makes any sort of speculation about the extent or impact of future warming that sounds even slightly scary, then we never hear the end of it, no matter how many times subsequent research refutes it.

"After reading hundreds of scientific articles and consulting widely on what they mean and how they fit together, I am convinced that if there is a consensus, it is not alarmist," said Ebell.

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/17568/Climatologists_Reject_Media_Claims_of_Global_Warming_Consensus.html

Brainiac
08-09-2010, 09:35 AM
US being hoodwinked into draconian climate policies

By Dr. Timothy Ball & Tom Harris

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Imagine basing a country's energy and economic policy on an incomplete, unproven theory -- a theory based entirely on computer models in which one minor variable is considered the sole driver for the entire global climate system.

This is precisely what Al Gore, U.S. Senate environment committee chairman Barbara Boxer and others want their nation to do. They expect Americans to accept on blind faith the thesis that human carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are causing catastrophic climate change. Boxer, Gore and their allies readily resort to emotional bullying against anyone who dares question this dogma. Their pronouncements -- Boxer's juvenile "the American people have the will to slow, stop and reverse global warming" is a prime example - are merely displays of arrogance that expose their lack of basic science understanding (or their complete disrespect of public intelligence). The policies they advocate are wholly unjustified scientifically and have extraordinarily damaging economic implications for the developed world.

Science advances through hypotheses based on a set of assumptions. Other scientists challenge and test those assumptions in what philosopher Karl Popper called the practice of 'falsibility.' Trying to disprove hypothesis is what real science is all about. Yet the hypothesis that human addition of CO2 would lead to significantly enhanced greenhouse warming was quickly accepted without this normal scientific challenge. As Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences said, the consensus was reached before the research had even begun. Adherents to the hypothesis began defending the increasingly indefensible by launching personal attacks, essentially trying to frighten scientific opponents into silence.

Yet, much to the frustration of alarmists, solid scientific evidence continues to mount against the flawed notion that human CO2 emissions are a problem.

For instance, last month NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) made significant changes to their temperature records, downgrading the magnitude of recent rises. This was precipitated by discovery of errors in NASA methodologies by Canadian researcher Steve McIntyre, already well-know for his debunking of the now infamous 'hockey stick' temperature graph that was a fundamental pillar of the 2001 UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report.

Dr. James Hansen, as Director of GISS, is responsible for NASA temperature records. An ardent Gore supporter, Hansen often plays conflicting roles simultaneously - within one week of the change to the NASA record he posted a Blog diatribe, not officially through his employer's channels, but as a private citizen. Therein, he claimed the temperature changes were insignificant (in reality, they are highly significant) and likened climate warming skeptics to "court jesters" in the pay of industry. Hanson also played this duplicitous game when he made a sensationalist climate change presentation to Congress as a private citizen. Such strongly held and outspoken views likely influence, and so are inconsistent with, his activities as a scientist/executive at NASA.

Before McIntyre's discovery, NASA considered 1998 the warmest year in the continental U.S.; now, as explained by Paul Driessen in Monday's Canada Free Press, it is 1934, with 1998 second and 1921 third. When human production of CO2 was minimal, in the 1930's, four of the 10 warmest years are now seen to have occurred. The past decade now includes only three of the ten warmest years. Will Gore withdraw An Inconvenient Truth pending necessary corrections?

A second 'proof' of human CO2-caused warming, according to the IPCC, was a claimed increase in global temperatures of about 1°F over 130 years. This was asserted to be outside natural variability. But the uncertainty in the measurements was over ±0.3°F, meaning possible values could vary by as much as 66% of the total change. The source of this temperature calculation, University of East Anglia's Professor Phil Jones, has refused to disclose which temperature records were used and how he 'adjusted' them. Clearly, IPCC conclusions must be viewed with considerable suspicion until they provide full disclosure on the Jones data.

Computer models are the basis of all forecasts used by alarmists. And these models used temperature data that is now known to be suspect or completely wrong. Will Gore, Boxer and the IPCC call for a re-evaluation of the global warming scare. Don't bet on it - accurate science was never a hallmark of this crusade.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming091307.htm

Bob Dole
08-09-2010, 09:36 AM
Must be nice having 4 seasons. Here in Texas we have Summer and Not Summer.

Bob Dole is far enough north in Texas that we still have a 2-day Spring and Fall.

Brainiac
08-09-2010, 09:41 AM
The gods must be laughing

Al Gore's ‘truth' has little to do with science, yet his influence continues to grow - we need to more closely assess what he is actually saying

By Tom Harris

Tuesday, November 7, 2006

Albert Einstein once said, "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."

While the gods must consider "An Inconvenient Truth" the ultimate comedy, real climate scientists have been crying over Al Gore's global warming film, now to be released on DVD November 21st. This is not just because the ex-Vice President committed numerous basic science mistakes; they are also concerned that, as a movie that has grossed over $20 million dollars (making it the 4th highest grossing documentary ever), many in the media and public have put great faith in the veracity of the film even though much of it amounts to little more than science fiction.

Yet Gore's influence on the public debate continues to increase. Between late September 2006 to January 2007, he, and some of the educators and scientists who support him, plan to train "more than 1,000 individuals to give a version of his presentation on the effects of - and solutions for - global warming, to community groups throughout the U.S.", according to his Web site, www.climatecrisis.org. All this has obviously impressed the British government as Gore has just been appointed international adviser on climate change to Gordon Brown, U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer and most likely the next Prime Minister.

Given Gore's increasing profile, it is worthwhile to more closely examine the science of his film.

Gore's credibility is damaged early in the movie when he tells the audience that, by simply looking at Antarctic ice cores with the naked eye, one can see when the American Clean Air Act was passed. Dr. Ian Clark, Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa, Canada, responds, "This is pure fantasy unless the reporter is able to detect parts per billion changes to chemicals in ice." Air over the US doesn't even circulate to the Antarctic before mixing with most of the northern, then the southern hemisphere air and this process takes decades. Clark explains that even far more significant events, such as the settling of dust arising from the scouring of continental shelves at the end of ice ages, are undetectable in ice cores by an untrained eye.

Gore repeatedly labels carbon dioxide (CO2) as "global warming pollution" when, in reality, it is no more pollution than is oxygen. CO2 is plant food, an ingredient essential for photosynthesis without which Earth would be a lifeless, frozen ice ball. The hypothesis that human release of CO2 is a major contributor to global warming is just that – an unproven hypothesis, against which evidence is increasingly mounting.

In fact, the supposedly convincing cause and effect relationship between CO2 and temperature that Gore speaks about so confidently is simply non-existent over all meaningful time scales. University of Ottawa climate researcher, Professor Jan Veizer demonstrated that, over geologic time, the two are not linked at all. Over the intermediate time scales Gore focuses on, the ice cores show that CO2 increases don't precede, and therefore don't cause, warming. Rather they follow temperature rise - by as much as 800 years. Even in the past century, the correlation is poor – the planet actually cooled between 1940 and 1980 when human emissions of CO2 were rising at the fastest rate in our history.

Similarly, the fact that water vapour constitutes 95% of greenhouse gases by volume is conveniently ignored by Gore. While humanity's 3 billions tonnes (gigatonnes, or GT) per year net contribution to the atmosphere's CO2 load appears large on a human scale, it is actually less than half of 1% of the atmosphere's total CO2 content (750-830 GT). The CO2 emissions of our civilization are also dwarfed by the 210 GT/year emissions of the gas from Earth's oceans and land. Perhaps even more significant is the fact that the uncertainty in the measurement of atmospheric CO2 content is 80 GT – making 3 GT seem hardly worth mentioning.

But Gore persists, labeling future CO2 rise as "deeply unethical" and lectures the audience that "Each one of us is a cause of global warming." Not satisfied with simply warning of human-induced killer heat waves - events in Europe this past year were "like a nature hike through the Book of Revelations", he says – he then uses high tech special effects to show how human-caused climate changes are causing more hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, infectious diseases, insect plagues, glacial retreats, coral die-outs, and the flooding of small island nations due to sea level rise caused by the melting of the polar caps. One is left wondering if Gore thinks nature is responsible for anything.

Scientists who actually work in these fields flatly contradict Gore. Take his allegations that extreme weather (EW) events will increase in frequency and severity as the world warms and that this is already happening. Former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg (Canada) and now Chairman of the newly launched Natural Resources Stewardship Project, Dr. Timothy Ball, notes, "The theories that Gore supports indicate the greatest warming will be in Polar Regions. Therefore the temperature contrast with warmer regions - the driver of extreme weather - will lessen and, with it, storm potential will lessen."

This is exactly what Former Environment Canada research scientist and EW specialist Dr. Madhav Khandekar found. His studies show that there has been no increase in EW events in Canada in the last 25 years. Furthermore, he sees no indication that such events will increase over the next 25 years. "In fact some EW events such as winter blizzards have definitely declined", say Khandekar. "Prairie droughts have been occurring for hundreds of years. The 13th and 16th century saw some of the severest and longest droughts ever on Canadian/American Prairies." Like many other researchers, Khandekar is convinced that EW is not increasing globally either.

On hurricanes, Gore implies that new records are being set as a result of human greenhouse gas emissions. Besides clumsy errors in the presentation of the facts (Katrina did not get "stronger and stronger and stronger" as it came over the Gulf of Mexico; rather, it was category 5 over the ocean and was downgraded to category 3 when it made a landfall), Gore fails to note that the only region to show an increase in hurricanes in recent years is the North Atlantic. Hurricane specialist Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and now adjunct professor of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, points out, "In all other six ocean basins, where tropical cyclones occur, there is either a flat or a downward trend." Murty lists 1900, 1926 and 1935 as the years in which the most intense hurricanes were recorded in the US. In fact, Dr. Max Mayfield, Director of the National Hurricane Center in Miami has stated that global warming has nothing to do with the recent increase in hurricane frequency in the North Atlantic. Murty concludes, "The feeling among many meteorologists is that it has to do with the North Atlantic Oscillation, which is now in the positive phase and will continue for another decade or so."

In their open letter to the Canadian Prime Minister in April, 61 of the world's leading experts modestly expressed their understanding of the science: "The study of global climate change is an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system." It seems that liberal arts graduate Al Gore, political champion of the Kyoto Protocol, thinks he knows better.

Institut Pasteur (Paris) Professor Paul Reiter seemed to sum up the sentiments of many experts when he labeled the film "pure, mind-bending propaganda." Such reactions should certainly cause viewers to wonder if Nobel Prize winning French novelist Andre Gide had a point when he advised, "Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."

Hydrae
08-09-2010, 10:13 AM
Brainiac, those are some interesting reads. Are there any similar in tone that are more current than late 2006? When discussing an ice island breaking away in the last few days and with an issue that seems to change daily, 4 year old articles are unlikely to be given serious consideration.

Just Passin' By
08-09-2010, 10:53 AM
Brainiac, those are some interesting reads. Are there any similar in tone that are more current than late 2006? When discussing an ice island breaking away in the last few days and with an issue that seems to change daily, 4 year old articles are unlikely to be given serious consideration.

I don't know if this is exactly what you're looking for, but here's some:

A report from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado finds that Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/jan/10/inconvenient-truth-ice-cap-growing/

rgentina is importing record amounts of energy as the coldest winter in 40 years drives up demand and causes natural-gas shortages, prompting Dow Chemical Co. and steelmaker Siderar SAIC to scale back production.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-03/argentina-colder-than-antarctica-spurs-record-power-imports-shuts-plants.html

“I do not find the supposed scientific consensus among my colleagues,” noted Earth Scientist Dr. Javier Cuadros on March 3, 2009. Cuadros, of the UK Natural History Museum, specializes in Clay Mineralogy and has published more than 30 scientific papers.

http://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/global-warming-700-international-scientists-report-skepticism-to-u-s-senate/

Garcia Bronco
08-09-2010, 11:37 AM
The globe warmed and cooled long before we were here and it'll do so long after we are gone. I don't know which one of these groups is dumber: The ones that think we have caused to globe to warm or the people that think we can do something about it.

Iowanian
08-09-2010, 01:26 PM
This sounds like a Job for the world's largest margarita blender.

Iowanian
08-09-2010, 01:29 PM
When that Ice Shelf broke off, I'll bet the Northern Atlantic looked like Redrum's mama did a cannon ball into a jacuzzi.

tiptap
08-09-2010, 03:09 PM
Expert Credibility in Climate Change – Responses to Comments
Filed under:

* Climate Science
* skeptics

— group @ 3 August 2010

Guest commentary by William R. L. Anderegg, Jim Prall, Jacob Harold, Stephen H. Schneider

Note: Before Stephen Schneider’s untimely passing, he and his co-authors were working on a response to the conversation sparked by their recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on climate change expertise. One of Dr. Schneider’s final interviews also addresses and discusses many of the issues covered here.

We accept and rely upon the judgment and opinions of experts in many areas of our lives. We seek out lawyers with specific expertise relevant to the situation; we trust the pronouncement of well-trained airplane mechanics that the plane is fit to fly. Indeed, the more technical the subject area, the more we rely on experts. Very few of us have the technical ability or time to read all of the primary literature on each cancer treatment’s biology, outcome probabilities, side-effects, interactions with other treatments, and thus we follow the advice of oncologists. We trust the aggregate knowledge of experts – what do 97% of oncologists think about this cancer treatment – more than that of any single expert. And we recognize the importance of relevant expertise – the opinion of vocal cardiologists matters much less in picking a cancer treatment than does that of oncologists.

Our paper Expert Credibility in Climate Change is predicated on this idea. It presents a broad picture of the landscape of expertise in climate science as a way to synthesize expert opinion for the broader discourse. It is, of course, only a first contribution and, as such, we hope motivates discussion and future research. We encourage follow-up peer-reviewed research, as this is the mark of scientific progress. Nonetheless, some researchers have offered thoughtful critiques about our study and others have grossly mischaracterized the work. Thus, here we provide responses to salient comments raised.

Definition of groups: The first of four broad comments about our study examines the relevancy of our two studied groups – those Convinced of the Evidence that much of the warming of the last half century is due in large part to human emissions of greenhouse gases, as assessed by the IPCC, which we term “CE,” and those who are Unconvinced of the Evidence (“UE”). Some have claimed that such groups do not adequately capture the complexity of expert opinion and therefore lose meaning. To be sure, anthropogenic climate change (ACC) is an immensely multi-faceted and complex area and expert opinion mirrors this complexity. Nonetheless, society uses simplifications of complex opinion landscapes all the time (e.g. Democrat versus Republican for political views) that don’t “lose their meaning” by ignoring the complexity of nuanced differences on specific topics within these broad groups.

The central questions at hand are: are these groups (1) clearly defined, (2) different in views of ACC, (3) reasonably discrete, and (4) in the main mutually exclusive? Our definition of groups, based entirely in the case of the UE group on their self-selected, voluntarily signed statements and petitions expressing various versions of skepticism about ACC, is clearly defined in the published paper. The strongest evidence indicating that our CE and UE groups satisfy the second and third criteria is that only three of 1,372 researchers fell into both groups—and in two of those cases, the researcher unwittingly added themselves to a statement they did not in fact support. Thus, if only one researcher of 1,372, or 0.07%, legitimately falls into both of our groups, this suggests that the two groups both differ starkly and are discrete. Any statistical analysis would be only trivially altered by having three redundant members of the cohort. Furthermore, the CE and UE groups are coherent, as around 35% of signers in each group also signed another statement in that set.

Another researcher suggests that his views have been “misclassified” by our inclusion of older public statements, as he signed a 1992 statement. Using a sweeping set of public statements that cover a broad time period to define the UE group allows us to compile an extensive (e.g. make an effort to be as comprehensive as possible) dataset and to categorize a researcher’s opinion objectively. However, were we to reclassify this researcher, it would only strengthen our results as then none of the top fifty researchers (rather than one researcher, or 2%) would fall in the UE camp.

Others have contended that the only experts we should have analyzed were those researchers involved specifically in detection and attribution of human-caused climate change. Importantly, much of the most convincing evidence for ACC comes from our understanding of the underlying physics of the greenhouse effect, illuminated long before the first detection/attribution studies, and these studies provide only one statistical line of evidence. The study could have been done in this manner but let us follow that logic to its conclusion. Applying this stricter criterion to the CE list does cause it to dwindle substantially…but applying it to the UE list causes it to approach close to zero researchers. To our knowledge, there are virtually no UE researchers by this logic who publish research on detection and attribution. Following this logic one would have to conclude that the UE group has functionally no credibility as experts on ACC. We would, however, argue that even this premise is suspect, as ecologists in IPCC have done detection and attribution studies using plants and animals (e.g. Root et al. 2005). Finally, applying a criterion such as this would require subjective judgments of a researcher’s focus area. Our study quite purposefully avoids making such subjective determinations and uses only objective lists of researchers who are self-defined. They were not chosen by our assessment as to which groups they may or may not belong in.

Some have taken issue with our inclusion of IPCC AR4 WGI authors in with the CE group, in that the IPCC Reports are explicitly policy-neutral while the four other CE policy statements/petitions are policy prescriptive. However, we believe our definition of the CE group is scientifically sound. Do IPCC AR4 WGI authors subscribe to the basic tenets of ACC? We acknowledge that this is an assumption, but we believe it is very reasonable one, given the strength of the ultimate findings of the IPCC AR4 WGI report. We classify the AR4 WGI authors as CE because they authored a report in which they show that the evidence is convincing. Naturally, authors may not agree with everything in the report, but those who disagreed with the most fundamental conclusions of the report would likely have stepped down and not signed their names. The presence of only one of 619 WGI contributors on a UE statement or petition, compared to 117 that signed a CE statement, provides further evidence to support this assumption. Furthermore, repeating our analysis relying only on those who signed at least one of the four CE letters/petitions and not on IPCC authorship yields similar results to those published.

No grouping of scientists is perfect. We contend that ours is clear, meaningful, defensible, and scientifically sound. More importantly, it is based on the public behavior of the scientists involved, and not our subjective assignments based on our reading of individuals’ works. We believe it is far more objective for us to use choices by scientists (over which we have no influence) for our data instead of our subjective assessment of their opinions.

Scientists not counted: What about those scientists who have not been involved with the IPCC or signed a public statement? What is their opinion? Would this influence our finding that 97% of the leading researchers we studied endorse the broad consensus regarding ACC expressed in IPCC’s AR4? We openly acknowledge in the paper that this is a “credibility” study and only captures those researchers who have expressed their opinions explicitly by signing letters/petitions or by signing their names as authors of the IPCC AR4 WGI report. Some employers explicitly preclude their employees from signing public statements of this sort, and some individuals may self-limit in the same way on principle apart from employer rules. However, the undeclared are not necessarily undecided. Two recent studies tackle the same question with direct survey methods and arrive at the same conclusion as reached in our study. First, Doran and Kendall-Zimmerman (2009) surveyed 3,146 AGU members and found that 97% of actively publishing climate researchers believe that “human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.” A recently published study, Rosenberg et al (2010), finds similar levels of support when surveying authors who have published during 1995-2004 in peer-reviewed journals highlighting climate research. Yes, our study cannot answer for – and does not claim to – those who have not publically expressed their opinions or worked with the IPCC, but other studies have and their results indicate that our findings that an overwhelming percentage of publishing scientists agree with the consensus are robust. Perfection is not possible in such analyses, but we believe that the level of agreement across studies indicates a high degree of robustness.

Publication bias: A frequent response to our paper’s analysis consists of attributing the patterns we found to a systematic, potentially conspiratorial suppression of peer-reviewed research from the UE group. As of yet, this is a totally unsupported assertion backed by no data, and appears untenable given the vast range of journals which publish climate-related studies. Notably, our publication and citation figures were taken from Google Scholar, which is one of the broadest academic databases and includes in its indexing journals openly receptive to papers taking a different view from the mainstream on climate. Furthermore, recently published analysis (Anderegg 2010) examines the PhD and research focus of a subsample of the UE group, compared to data collected by Rosenberg et al. 2010 for a portion of the climate science community publishing in peer-reviewed journals. If the two groups had similar background credentials and expertise (PhD topic and research focus – both non-publishing metrics), it might indicate a suppression of the UE group’s research. They don’t. The background credentials of the UE group differ starkly from that of the “mainstream” community. Thirty percent of the UE group sample either do not have a documented PhD or do not have a PhD in the natural sciences, as compared to an estimated 5% of the sample from Rosenberg et al; and nearly half of the remaining sample have a research focus in geology (see the interview by Schneider as well).

“Blacklist”: The idea that our grouping of researchers comprises some sort of “blacklist” is the most absurd and tragic misframing of our study. Our response is two-fold:

1. Our study did not create any list. We simply compiled lists that were publicly available and created by people who voluntarily self-identified with the pronouncements on the statements/letters. We did not single out researchers, add researchers, drop researchers; we have only compiled individuals from a number of prominent and public lists and petitions that they themselves signed, and then used standard social science procedure to objectively test their relative credibility in the field of climate science.
2. No names were used in our study nor listed in any attachments. We were very aware of the pressure that would be on us to provide the raw data used in our study. In fact, many journalists we spoke with beforehand asked for the list of names and for specific names, which we did not provide. We decided to compromise by posting only the links to the source documents – the ‘raw data’ in effect (the broader website is not the paper data), where interested parties can examine the publically available statements and petitions themselves. It is ironic that many of those now complaining about the list of names are generally the same people that have claimed that scientists do not release their data. Implying that our list is comparable to that created by Mark Morano when he worked for Senator Inhofe is decidedly unconvincing and irresponsible, given that he selected individuals based on his subjective reading and misreading of their work. See here for a full discussion of this problematic claim or read Schneider’s interview above.

In sum, the various comments and mischaracterizations discussed above do not in any way undermine the robust findings of our study. Furthermore, the vast majority of comments pertain to how the study could have been done differently. To the authors of such comments, we offer two words – do so! That’s the hallmark of science. We look forward to your scientific contributions – if and when they are peer-reviewed and published – and will be open to any such studies. In our study we were subjected to two rounds of reviews by three social scientists and in addition comments from the PNAS Board, causing us to prepare three drafts in response to those valuable peer comments that greatly improved the paper. We hope that this response further advances the conversation.

References
Anderegg, W.R.L. (2010) Moving Beyond Scientific Agreement. Climatic Change, 101 (3) 331-337.
Doran PT, Zimmerman MK (2009) Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Eos Trans. AGU 90.
Root, T.L. et al. (2005) Human-modified temperatures induce species changes: Joint attribution. PNAS May 24, 2005 vol. 102 no. 21 7465-7469
Rosenberg, S. et al (2010) Climate Change: A Profile of U.S. Climate Scientists’ Perspectives. Climatic Change, 101 (3) 311-329.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/expert-credibility-in-climate-change-responses-to-comments/

GoHuge
08-09-2010, 03:20 PM
Look I think that climate change brought on by human activity is a real thing. To what extent and how much "we" are actually effecting climate change.....I have no idea. I don't think it's as bad as the Al Gore's of the world make it out to be, and I don't think it's as insignificant as others try and make it. Who's to say this isn't just part of the continued evolution of our planet? We don't know for certain what weather and climate patterns have been over the last 50,000 years down to a degree and a half........which is what we're talking about when we talk about how much of a tempature difference "global warming" has caused. The alarming thing is that over the 21st century it is projected that the tempature of the earth will rise 2-11 degrees F if greenhouse gas emissions stay at their current rates. That's not an opinion, but simple math. The tempature on the planet Earth is rising. That is a fact. There are differing theories as to exactly why and how much, but there is no side or opinion that is 100 percent undisputable fact.

This place has destroyed itself and been destroyed over and over again throughout the roughly 4.6 billion years it has existed. Ninety-nine percent of every living thing that has existed on this planet are extinct. We will join that list someday and as human beings we are extremely arrogant about what we have control over. As far as the overall history of the planet Earth our time here is so insignificant that it is measured in fractions. There is nothing we can do if an asteroid like the one that wiped out the dinosaurs and created the K-T boundary hits the planet. We are all gone and the Earth will recycle itself again. If one of the mega volcanoes erupt again.......same thing. It is not a matter of if, but when. We will be fossils for some other civilization or another people to look at same day or maybe all that will be left of our time on earth will be a layer of shocked quartz. We don't know and anybody that says they do is grasping at straws at best.