Global temperatures are dangerously close to the highest ever estimated to have occurred in the past million years, scientists reported Monday.

In a study that analyzed temperatures around the globe, researchers found that Earth has been warming rapidly, nearly 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit (0.2 degrees Celsius) in the last 30 years.

"The average surface temperature is 15, maybe 16 degrees Celsius (60 degrees Fahrenheit)," said Alan Robock, a meteorologist and climate researcher from Rutgers University who was not involved with the study.

If global temperatures go up another 1.8 degrees F (1 degree C), it would be equal to the maximum temperature of the past million years.

"This evidence implies that we are getting close to dangerous levels of human-made (anthropogenic) pollution," said study leader James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

For the rest of the story:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15003895/

another news story, with no science based on the common knowledge that there was a record year, yet nothing to show why, save the arthors preconcieved notion that it was man made polution.

"This evidence implies that we are getting close to dangerous levels of human-made (anthropogenic) pollution," said study leader James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

It will be interesting to watch some of our members pull apart James Hansen's statement.

But then again, what does he know - he only works for NASA.

Ah, but I see that he was dealing with the skeptics 7 years ago.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

Some things never change.

Blacknad.

Oh, I see Dehammer got there before me, and I could have predicted what he was going to say.

Dehammer said "another news story, with no science"

So you took no notice of the fact that this statement comes after a 'SCIENTIFIC STUDY', and after Hansen had considered the evidence...

Now I may be wrong, but I assumed that the 'SCIENTIFIC STUDY' bit might actually be evidence of some SCIENCE. Sorry to jump the gun there.

Maybe Uncle Al will join in at this point and remind us that "wildfires are big and they burn lots of trees, stoopid".

Blacknad.

"wildfires are big and they burn lots of trees, stoopid"

Let's leave off the name calling and the encouragement thereto.

Amaranth
Moderator

Rose ... I think immitation one of the finest forms of flattery and Blacknad was just flattering Uncle Al. No offense should be taken by dehammer.

But really dehammer this has got to be the silly season for you. You are willfully turning a blind eye to the obvious.

Reconsider your position. The earth is absolutely warming: And a lot. The only question left at issue is the percentage contribution from human habitation.

And if you don't believe it is then kindly explain the photographic evidence accumulated during your lifetime. PhotoShop?

sorry, I must be reading a different link. All i saw was a news story about a study, that quote it, and then came to its own conclusion. I never found the actual study.

It depends on what exactly you are refering to.

Im sure you have heard of the little ice age that ended a couple centuries ago. If your refering to the fact that it has warmed up since the coldest part of the little ice age, then yes i agree that it has warmed up.

If on the other hand you are claiming as some has that man has raised the temperature of the world from its "standard" temperature, then first your going to have to figure out how to define the "standard" temperature.

One thing that i cant understand at all is how people make it like the earth is about to end or that our civilization is about to be destroyed. I will not say that we are not going to do so, but its not the co2 that is going to be a problem, nor the temperature.

name any other animal on earth that can live anywhere from the deepest, coldest polar region, to the hottest desert. man can even live beneith the waves or in space, a place that no other life form known to man has ever done so.

the global temperature has ranged from a point where the earth has been totally frozen, to a point where the hottest temperature man has ever faced would seem like a cool day. the earth will not be harmed if the temperature returns to that, and man will adapt with his normal ease to anything that comes along. we are not facing extinction, as many have indicated, even if the worse case scenario.

back to the point, the earth cycles from cold to hot with many things causing it. does this mean that we are having global warming, no, it means that were are having global climate changes, that are normal. are we near the top of the range, no, not even close. are we in danger of this? only if we panic and do something stupid like cause a global freeze that puts the entire world under ice.

you are so good at politics that at one point i could have sworn that you were a political instructor or even a professor of politics. This is one more example of why i thought so. Using the global "we agree" statements to make it look like everyone agrees with you is pure politics. Too bad you didnt go into politics, you could have been president with your skills.

show me the proof that the world temperature has risen, show me the raw uncorrected data, show me the data that has not been corrected to show the increase. I dont have to ignore any thing, because i look at everything. I dont let others spoon feed me my opinions. When they say that we have to beleive this or accept this, then i say, why, where is the evidence.

youve accused me of not seeing the tide go out as evidence of a tidal wave approaching, If i see the water recending, then yes, ill look to see what is there. on the other hand, if im setting on the beach, and people are running around claiming that a tidal wave is rapidly approaching, while my feet are in the waves, then ill have to have more proof.

many years ago, there were people who were terrified, because they had heard that there was a war going on, world wide, that we were losing and losing badly. In fact, we were losing so badly, because we did not have a single way of stopping the enemy. This enemy was not someone that wanted to take us over, and make us follow his orders, he wanted to kill us all. people were in a panic.

then they came on and said, "this is only a broadcast of Orsen Well's 'war of the worlds' and the martians are not landing". Personally, if i had been there, i would have gone out to look for the meteroid landings before i paniced.

as far as the evidence that you refer to. its possible to show a man holding up a 40 foot shark bare handed, without using photoshop. its a matter of prospectives.

an example: taking photos of one glacers and the evidence that it is retreating, while deliberately refusing to show any sign of the other 4 nearby glacers, all of which are advancing. by ignoring them, its very easy to make people believe that all the glacers in the world are retreating.

example 2: talking about how the glacers are disappearing in one areas, while at the same time ignoring the fact that in another area, only a short distance away, they are increasing.

example 3: talking about how during a record season, the ice has melted so much, yet ignoring the fact that on the cold years, the ice had increased.

example 4. choising the years in such a way that all of the records so it increasing in temp, decreasing in ice, or what ever.

example 5. using only short term data. such as a satelite record that is only 4 year long to prove that the ice is disappearing, when all it can show is that they ice has disappeared for 4 years, not what it was like before that.

the big proof that this is not a scientific study is that it uses the word dangerous as part of its title. what is so dangerous about the temperature rising in one year. how do they determine what is a dangerous level. its pure political hype.

I'm just commenting on this last statement: "the big proof that this is not a scientific study is that it uses the word dangerous as part of its title. what is so dangerous about the temperature rising in one year. how do they determine what is a dangerous level. its pure political hype."

You don't need proof that it's not a scientific study (though you're right about the emotionally charged word); because it's obviously a news article. It's about scientific studies, but it's the news person who says 'dangerous.' Oops, I see Hansen used the word first. Well maybe he does have an agenda or bias, but still my point is that there is data from scientific studies in this article. Do you consider it ALL pure political hype just because Hansen says "evidence implies" we're "close to dangerous levels...of pollution."
The article isn't proof of anything, but I don't see it as totally worthless either. But if I was to pick something to critique, it'd be the .2C rise refered to. Someone, (not involved with the study?) says a 1C rise would be the 1Myr. record, so my critique would be: is .2C "dangerously close" to one whole degree C. --or words to that effect.
Actually, the more I read that article, the more I wonder if Hansen even knew about the other information quoted by Roback or the reporters comment(?) about 1C being highest in 1Myr.

levels of polution i could agree, any level is dangerous, and the more we have to deal with the more the danger is. but how does that prove any thing about global warming.

More and more scientists are reluctantly admitting that the Earth is getting warmer. The exact cause of this warming has been obscured by the various natural feedback mechanisms that nature brings into play, in trying to preserve the status quo.
Trying to calculate the effect of the many and varied feedbacks involved, is proving so difficult
that many scientist would rather not comment.

Its when the natural feed back mechanism breaks down that we are liable to experience 'thermal runaway' with all its consequences.

Daniel Morgan has put out a lot of excellent posts, all about global warming, and its consequences.
Those that have doubts, should scroll back and read them.

Its pointless arguing that glaciers are melting, and then stating that they are growing back in thickness elsewhere. It dos'nt mean much since overall, its a feedback mechanism of Nature, that is trying to redistributing itself and preserve its status quo.

Its the total overall effect, of those few +degrees worldwide, that has to be looked at and taken into account, both above and below the Earths surface.

Prehaps one ought to be reminded that sharks, and man-of-war jelly fish, are now straying into the seas around Europe.
That Coral growing in the tropical seas, are dying, due to the warmer waters.
That the deserts in the world are increasing in area rapidly.
Not forgetting the slow northward march of the malaria mosquitoe.

Polar Bears hollow out snow caves, in which they hibernate and give birth. Their snow shelters are OVER the sea. They also trek hundreds of miles across the ice to hunt for seal.
But more are dying from exaustion by swimming, since the ice floes are breaking up and getting fewer. They need the ice to lay on, watch, and catch their food.

Your great grandfathers were looking for the 'North West Passage, (Frobisher etc) 200 years ago. There was'nt one,.....it was solid ice all year round.
Today Canada is thinking of passing a law, so that they can charge a fee for all American, European and Japanese tankers that will soon be using this short cut all year round.
There are plans to built a second and much wider Panama Canal, it probably wont be needed, the northern route to Continents would be quicker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal
Read the para labelled "Competition"

You dont have to be a scientist to realise there is more moisture (energy) in the air, look at our world weather.

Finally you might not know it,unless you were told by NASA,....that the Sun's output is increasing?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/358953.stm

--------------------
"You will never find a real Human being - even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer

Aww, come on Amaranth. Please let me bait Uncle Al - I love reading his posts. They are highly entertaining when I can understand them.

Blacknad.

G'day all,

Here is a direct submission by Dr Hansen. I'll leave it for anyone to decide just how unbiased Dr Hansen is. The use of "dangerous" is clearly Dr Hansen's from the very beginning and his emphasis. This is a public document by the way so I'm not reproducing anything that Dr Hansen did not wish to be generally distributed.


Regards


Richard

Richard, thanks for the kind reply. ~Sam
&re: your last post. Wow, so do I get that JGR rejected Hansen's article? I haven't tried the link yet, but I find this quote real interesting. Now I'm curious about the 'Efficacy' paper too. Did that generate a lot of controversy? Thanks for your input. ~Sam

G'day again,

This is my current favourite topic, temperature data. So Mike Kramer believes that everyone is admitting the world is getting warmer. How do they reach that conclusion? As Mr Blair, PM of Britain says, science is not a matter of voting for a position, it is a matter of scientific enquiry. The majority deserve to be listened to but that does not mean they are always right.

I liked that rather reasoned and rational approach.

The last couple of days I've been looking at a research paper that is all about temperatures. It shows the earth is cooling! The authors do not believe this by the way but that was the only conclusion they could reach from the data they had when they attempted to eliminate various errors in the Surface Air Temperature data. I don't believe this is going to be published in Science any time soon.

This is where it gets tricky. In order to replicate this study, you need access to the data. Hey presto, the GHCN data set is available on the Internet for you to download. I've posted this a few times, but this is an easy access version: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ . Here's another link: http://fuzzo.com/ghcn/. If you want to do anything with the GHCN data, this is as good a program as any to be able to read it.

OK, so you now have 7,000 weather station monthly averages. Dr Hansen and his co-authors are actually talking about a computer simulation of rather course structure. Way too course to take into account clouds for instance and very much out of date. But it is still a model. ie. A guess. Why would every other science, be extremely sceptical of researchers guessing the future, yet climate studies, love it so much?

Forget the "average" fiasco which may make the figures, especially from 1970 on, out by as much as 2 degrees. In order to do anything with this data, you have to eliminate urban effect. That cuts out the majority of the figures. Then you need to standardise your model. Can't have 500 points in the US and none in Africa. That would bias the results if there is a regional climate shift that is not worldwide. But you also need data that goes back a few years and relates to the same station. So now we are down to about 1% of the stations. That's 70 stations. And that's why you get global cooling. You don't have enough data.

Why not use the satellite data or the balloon data for Dr Hansen's model? Well, because it does not show global warming. It shows a marginal warming in 30 years based on two hot years. It matches sunspots where the SAT data diverges from the sunspot data markedly since 1970. I quote Dr Sami Solanski of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research:

But did it in the past. Yep. Another scientist:

Paula Reimer, palaeoclimatologist.

And this:

Scientific method suggests that if you have persuasive links between two systems then if you have records that do not match either of these two systems at all, generally, you have a look at what might be wrong with the data.

So, what is it. If global warming is man-made and if you believe satellite data is accurate for such things as ice measurements of the Arctic, then satellite data must be accepted for the world's comparison temperatures, you have a really big problem, that the satellite data does not show global warming overall, just a bit of an increase in a couple of years that really do correspond with solar activity.

This cannot be that hard to understand, really. You have a data set that any study of demonstrates just how bad it is. You have two other data sets that no one can argue are extremely accurate that do not agree with it at all. Sure you can argue a bit about shielding problems in the early 70s or shift problems with satellites but if you assume the absolute worst and correct for these, you still do not get any match with the other set of data and you still do not get global warming. You get a little variation upward for a very short time within a 30 year period.

If you want to argue with this, it is really very simple. Point to any research that suggests that the SAT data is not flawed. Suggest logic problems with the comparison of the SAT against the balloon and satellite data. Suggest some global warming reason why the satellite data will show nothing when the world really is warming such as the models suggest that global warming will cause a cooling in the upper atmosphere and that is screwing up the data. I wouldn't suggest you use this theory on the two scientist groups that produce the satellite data, however, because it really ignores how satellite data is collected. It does not collect upper atmosphere temperatures as a major component of the temperatures that are used.

So, if you really think there is global warming (and you might well be right but not based on the satellite data currently available - the 30 years does not show it and it is just not long enough), suggest data that is comparable and is not just regional and is not seriously flawed. While you're at it, suggest why the very good data that is available from the US and Canada, and New Zealand and Australia, does not correspond with the rest of the SAT. If you take them alone, taking out urban areas, you get some regional climate changes with some of the US warming, some cooling, some of Australia warming, some cooling, but overall no pattern or a cooling one.

This is not all that complicated in the end. It is really easy to obscure facts or cover for bad data.

A Couple of Long Stories About How Errors Can Occur Where Everyone Turns out to be Wrong

I had to work out why a railway line sunk once. For four years the very best engineering firms in the world had been arguing amongst themselves. Each expert opinion on why the collapse occurred, brought a response, usually another hundred pages longer than the opinion, from the other four groups pointing out all the flaws and why another theory fitted better. 40,000 pages of expert opinion eventually turned up. It would have been really funny if it did not involve several hundred jobs and $120 million dollars and the railway line not being fixed (it didn't carry trains but 180 tonne specialist equipment).

All I found with all that opinion was not facts but science used to obscure facts. The opinions became progressily more densely scientific, with more complex formulas, each time.

End result? I asked each group to submit their theory in a standard form without attacking any other theory and while they did that I interviewed those involved and had another expert take samples and we both examined the scene by cutting a rather big hole under the railway line. Not one of the theories came close to being correct because they were not being produced to do that. The reputations of some very big egos rested on the results of this, not to mention who would cough up the $120 million.

It turned out that everyone made some mistake that contributed to a very simple failure in the end. The original geotech survey didn't sample enough of the area to really determine what was there. The geotech survey was fudged a bit towards a way that would cut a couple of million dollars of the building costs and quality material was assumed to be in the excavation area when the geotech survey suggested only that it might be, and it was wrong in this because it was in an area where there were too few samples.

So then the next group of experts were faced with a decision of using material that wasn't what was needed. So they changed the specs, using some calculations that would have worked except for some drainage issues and the fact that this was not a standard railway line. The definition on what "crushed" was, was altered a little bit.

One person in construction, who was very experienced in construction but did not have a great many letters after his name, actually pointed out that the material was deficient. He was told he didn't know what he was talking about.

Some pipes that needed to be specially made for drainage were not available and so a substitution was made for another type that should have been as good, but wasn't because of the other changes.

Overall, each mistake or correction was very minor. Each looked like it would not affect the outcome or impinge on the margin of safety by more than a tiny amount. That was true if the stuff was up to scratch. But it wasn't and the whole thing started to sink after a couple of years.

I had the world's top experts trying to figure out why power grid stations were blowing up (and in a couple of cases frying workers). Couldn't do it until it was found that a purchasing officer had a friend in a chemical company and swapped over the supply of some insulating material to that company. They made almost identical insulation gunk so wham was the harm? Helped his friend make a $10,000 sale. Trouble is the material had a temperature range only up to 55 degrees celcius and the material it was covering on occasion reached 58 or 59 degrees. The actual specifications required material rated to 65 degrees (although the normal working range was the same for the originally requested material and for the swapped one). This little change, that no one could figure out for months cost over $3 billion.

I've done hundreds of these types of enquiries and, while, they have nothing to do with global warming, they do have to do with why everybody just knows that global warming is irrefutable and even man-made because of the CO2 and the very real possibility that "everyone" doesn't know that they are talking about. Not saying I do, but I really would like more people to focus on the fundamental part of global warming, the data. If it cannot be trusted, then you either need to get better data or work out a way to prove global warming through other means, if it is true, which the satellite data suggests it might not be.


Regards


Richard

G'day Mike,

Just a quick comment (which knowing how I type will end up being 16 pages LOL). Anyone that studies past climate will tell you nature is not an entity. It does not "try" to do anything. There is no "balance" to climate. There are temporarily stable states that actually turn out to be not all that stable.

The really big mystery of climate studies is just why deglaciations (the switch that happens every once and a while during an Ice Age and happened a bit over 11,000 years ago) suddenly occur or why the opposite then happens a few thousand years later and the glacial period then lasts for so much longer than the interglacial period.

You want to suggest what feedback mechanisms obscure global warming in the last few years. I'm really interested in this aspect of what I call "excuse science" (rather a derogatory term but if someone comes up with a reason why their overall theory is still right despite the observed evidence no longer fitting it really starts to sound like nothing more than an excuse). To fit excuse science, the excuse has to be opinion rather than research, not corroborated with any real evidence, and not accepted by the original researchers that the excuse is aimed at demonstrating they missed some important point. It may well be a valid excuse by the way, but cannot be trusted on its own.

Satellite data can't be trusted because our models show that global warming will cause cooling. Oh, the US data shows cooling because our models show that global warming will produce regional cooling. The Antarctica obviously will get thicker ice coverage during global warming because global warming will cause more precipitation (that one really is a bit rich since the people using it generally know that there has been no change in precipitation rates in the Antarctica for 50 years). The balloons were not properly shielded so they warm up during the day in the 70s creating higher base temperatures (the shielding one really is reaching, the balloon data perfectly matches the satellite data which does not have a similar error in the 70s and the alleged shielding deficiencies were only for a short period).


Regards


Richard

G'day,

Making this an altmightly long reply but I missed something.

Four polar bears prove global warming? Title of my lecture. Where did you get the information about the polar bears. The populations of polar bears are increasing especially in areas of the Arctic where the temperature is increasing. They are decreasing in areas where the temperature is decreasing. Not a good example because any polar bear expert will disagree.

Coral reefs. Been around for hundreds of millions of years. They actually thrive in very hot world climate conditions but they have a whole bunch of cycles. Most coral experts suggest that coral reef damage is due to man-made pollution in rivers that flush into the areas where the reefs are. That is not evidence of global warming but it is evidence of man's stupidity.

Malaria. Global warming. No connection! Don't take my word, look at the experts in disease migration. Malaria is due to the intrusion of man into areas that we used to avoid because of malaria and due to such simple things as allowing the importation of used tires (tyres) filled with water that also contain the nasty little anopholis (have no idea how to spell this) mosquito. Do a google search and you will find that this is one of the worst examples of panic reporting done by global warming proponents and news reporters you will find. Telling lies does not help anyone's case (and I'm not saying they are deliberately lying, only that those that repeat this argument really haven't taken the time to confirm whether any expert in diseases actually agrees with it or not). Indeed, you wil find some very pissed off doctors because by blaming global warming the emphasis is taken away from really simple means to avoid the continuation of this spread, so repeating this falsehood endlessly is actually killing people. That is something I think is reprehensible. You don't make statements to help your argument that has the capacity to kill people without being very very sure of your facts. Dr Singer, a distinguished scientist in the field of climate science, has made this point many times, and is listened to less and less. If the risk is very small but the premiums very large or the possibility exists that real damage will be done by addressing such a risk, it is not a good idea to do so.

I'm sorry, but I have to say that using this as an example, if remembered by others, has the capacity for real harm and Mike, I do not for a second think, that anyone really wants to do this. I would really suggest you do a search on all the medical research about this subject before making such a statement again.

And one last thing, the article on solar magnetic fields to be blame for any global warming is not an argument that supports your views on global warming at all. That article was saying that it was all due increased solar activity. That was a news article but, according, to a whole bunch of research coming from solar experts, we have just this month entered a quiet phase which will last at least 50 years.

Regards


Richard

I'll read your last post later, but I can now see why JGR speaks to 'readable in one sitting.' I was struck by the Solar Irradiance section (3.3.3)(in the Transient paper) which I think could address some of the comments made on the 8 page thread (Russian scientist...).

amaranth is taking her duties as moderator far too seriously

dan has posted jazz on global warming, and his continued efforts at a defense become more...

Hi Richard,

Taking Solar activity first:-
That article was saying that "it was all due to INCREASED solar activity" ....Q.E.D
End of conversation. Sorry to be so curt, I'm short of time.
Also you say-............"we have just this month entered a quiet phase which will last at least 50 years".
I dont know Richard, you may be right....however the sun is gearing up for a 'sunspot ' maximum. A sunspot maximum means an active sun. Next sunspot maximum is in 2011
Its predicted that it will be one of the worst ever, in terms of upsetting all types of communications, as well as 'tripping' power lines off, leaving homes and business's without power.

Malaria = Global warming?
I didnt say that, nor meant to imply it.
I just mentioned the 'slow march northward of the mosquitoe insect' ......implying, thats due to
global warming.

Coral Reefs...I said they are dying due to warmer
seas.
They may be affected by pollution, but river estuarys are usually hundreds of miles from the normal habitat of these delicate ANIMALS.

Lastly....You say the population of polar Bears are increasing?
Wrong.
The overall population of polar Bears is very much decreasing.
Since Artic warming, the Bears have moved in to the edges of human habitations and forage for food in rubbish dumps. Where they have become a dangerous nuisance. People drive out in trucks to photograph them, having never seen them before. Also Polar Bears only bear one Cub, they are very vunerable, as they normally walk with their mothers many hundreds of miles to the sea, at the edge of the ice shelf. Now due to warming, the ice shelf is not continuous, and breaks up into ice floes, the Cubs die from exaustion swimming from one ice floe to another. Itshould be noted that their food, the Seals, are only to be found in large numbers, in the sea at the edge of the ice shelf.
Another result of Global Warming.

--------------------
"You will never find a real Human being - even in a mirror." .....Mike Kremer.

-

G'day Mike,

What I said was not just my opinion. I have actually read research on coral reefs, and polar bears. I have not seen one single paper on polar bears that suggest their population is decreasing. You are using suggestions as to why polar bears may be under threat but the only way to know if this is true is to do the research of those that actually track polar bears or count them. I do know for instance that polar bears do not bear single cubs as the norm but as for the rest, it probably happens. The question is, overall, does it have much effect on the population. That type of explanatory remarks make the loss of polar bears sound real but they are not a substitute for real research. That research says that polar bear populations are increasing. Try the WWF for polar bear populations in Canada. If you want to argue this further I would suggest you point to research which shows polar bears are dying out.

Your comment on coral reefs obviously suggests your understanding of coral reefs is a bit lacking. Coral reefs are hugely affected by the river systems that feed the waters that surround them but once again that level of detail is best left to experts on coral reefs. Instead of suggesting my explanation was wrong, how about looking at what experts think.

As to disease, specifically malaria, your statement did imply that this was because of warming. Any reasonable person would have read into your four points that they were because of global warming. Disease migration, especially maliaria, is not due to global warming and I would be happy to point to research on this subject. My comments stand as they are.

Solar activities are not a field I am an expert in. However, I do understand that you can have a cluster of sunspots within a quiet period. If 2011 is predicted to be such a cluster then it may have a temporary effect on communications however unless the expected increase is going to be long term, and the studies I've read state that it will be quiet for the next 50 years, it will have no effect on the earth's climate. Bit like having a very hot day in the middle of winter. The snow might melt a bit but the next day when the temperatures go back to normal, so does everything else.


Regards


Richard

That the anthropogenic nature of climate change has yet to be scientifically determined - appears to be at the heart of the climate research debate currently underway. The following link is Aotearoa / New Zealand's contribution to the global perspective:

http://www.climatescience.org.nz/assets/2006930201100.ResponseToRSNZ.pdf

Fascinating.

And while they beat their chests ... the ice melts.

As Aotearoa / New Zealand is relatively close to the icey bits, I've recently bought a boat. Not a boat of Ark proportions of course, simply one that will take two children, the unpaired dog, and an equally solo flying budgie - oh yes, and the partner.

.... and grows, and melts, and grows, and melts and....

Hi Richard, I'm back. re: your "Disease migration, especially maliaria, is not due to global warming and I would be happy to point to research on this subject."
I'd be interested in seeing something along those lines.
~gotta go -small crisis w/ kids.
~Sam

Hello Richard,

If you, or anyone else would like to get the facts of Global Warming, I suggest you go to see the Documentary Film "An Inconvenient Truth"
Its a very powerful film. It is also due to come out on DVD (around November 2006). Well worth watching.
Al Gore spend a lot of money to get this film produced, since he wanted to influence President GW Bush to change his policy on Carbon emmissions.

Polar Bears are Drowning -
As more northern countries are fitting polar Bears with radio tracking collars, more info upon their movements feeding habits and deaths might surprise you, as the details are released.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1938132,00.html

Note- that the ICUN have just placed the Polar Bear on their Red List of Threatened Species

...and
Climbing Everest has become too easy today.
It can now be climbed in just ten hours! Says the Abbot of Tengboche Monastery, Nepal. Because- "there is less snow, and the glaciers are shrinking rapidly"
....and he should know, they supply the sherpas for the ascents.

Well Richard, I'm sure you've seen that Times article based on the 4 polar bears reference. But what about the: '...USGS and the Canadian Wildlife Service to be published next year will show the population fell 22% from 1,194 in 1987 to 935 last year.' Oh, wow-that's almost 20 years; so about 1%/yr out of a population of ~1000. Hmmm, well maybe not quite so significant. I thought it was a more sudden onset; still... guess it's just another pointer to poles retreating. I heard today that the polar caps on Mars have been retreating for at least 6 years now too.
~Sam

G'day,

Polar Bears. This is a difficult subject because every single polar bear is not tagged. The WWF says that polar bears are not endangered, their numbers are stable or increasing. Others say differently. If you really wanted to argue about polar bears you would have to know how they are being counted now and have been counted in the past. There is a real possibility that previous counts double counted bears or that they were based on an estimate or indirect evidence. But it could also be that the 1,194 polar bears that are being observed by the Canadian Wildlife Service have been reduced to 935. How? By poaching perhaps. By shooting because they intruded on civilisation. How about they decided they didn't like being Canadian and have decided to wander into the US instead? Does that change in number prove global warming? This is the trouble with using abstract information to suggest global warming. Too many possible unrelated causes.

So let's not be so abstract. Lets look at the average temperature anomolies for the arctic regions. According to the satellite data there has been some regional warming and some regional cooling and overall, nothing. No difference in 30 years. So if the bears are dying it is really difficult to say it is global warming when overall their region has not changed in temperature.

And in the case of polar bears we even have conflicts as to what is happening with their population. If there are more of them where it is getting regionally warmer could that mean that they are migrating or having more cubs in response to some environmental trigger? How would I know? Unless you are a polar bear expert, how would you?

The crack about the four dead polar bears comes from An Inconvenient Truth. Mr Gore says that for the first time significant numbers of polar bears are drowning. He is referring to a study that records the observation of four dead polar bears after a major wind storm. I do not believe the two match all that well.

Mike, I've watched "An Inconvenient Truth" and commented on it at length on this forum before. It is very well presented but the science behind it goes from marginal to just plain wrong. Even though most scientists, even those that strongly agree with Global Warming, have agreed that the Mann graph is deceptive and based on invalid scientific method, Mr Gore continues to use it as if it is the unvarnished truth. Bit like the polar bears. Goes on about tropical glaciers when the majority of the melt of these glaciers occurred more than a century ago, well before supposed man-made global warming. The speed of melting of these glaciers has actually slowed in recent years.

I've already mentioned Mr Thompson's analysis of ice cores a few times but its worth mentioning again. You do not get six wildely differing results from six cores in three glaciers and decide that the way to resolve the differences is to average the results. Four of the cores did not support Mr Thompson's theories at all (the majority) but the two that did did so to a larger extent than the other four. Thus the average presents a result that only two of the six cores agrees with. I cannot see how anyone interested in accurate science can say this is good science or valid, yet this study is often quoted, including extensively by Mr Gore.

Mike, I'm happy to discuss any particular subject brought up by Mr Gore. His slide presentation is not science. He is an evangalist on global warming, that much is clear. He is also extremely good at putting his point across but none of the science is his. A great deal of what he has said in the Inconvenient Truth has annoyed even those that overall agree with him. The Mann "hockey stick" for instance does not go down well with those that have to face further discussion about something that has previously been settled.

Regards


Richard

G'day Sam,

Spread of Malaria

My bad habit of reading research papers that I find interesting but not cataloging them has come back to bite me yet again. I cannot lay my hands on the research which I was referring to right now. I can find nesw articles that refer to it but not the research itself. I will, might take me a few days, is all.

I am attempting to correct this problem by being much more careful to add these types of research papers that are not directly relevent to my studies into my database but it is a long slow process.

He is a website I found that disputes the nexus between global warming and spread of disease. The site seems to be rather right wing but the arguments seem reasonable. I'll look for some better ones.

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba241.html

Here's a press release that makes similar points:

http://www.policynetwork.net/main/press_release.php?pr_id=13

I did like the quote:

I'd prefer to cite research directly and will when I've managed to backtrack where the research is. This at least is a beginning.


Regards


Richard

The link ("rather right wing" site) does acknowledge the point:
According to a recent WHO report by Professor Paul Epstein of the Harvard School of Public Health, mosquitoes carrying malaria and dengue fever have been found at higher altitudes in Africa, Asia and Latin America due to warmer temperatures.
As I see it, that is the "evidence" for warming. All the other points in the article have to do with spread of disease, control of disease, location of disease, etc. All these points are controlled by social factors, not the climate. They do address the claim that disease is spread by global warming, but nothing refutes that mosquito habitat is expanding due to warming. I'll try the othere link later
~Sam

My favourite line in the original post is the first line:

"Global temperatures are dangerously close to the highest ever estimated to have occurred in the past million years, scientists reported Monday."

That immediately brought back some fond memories of my University days. Chem lab had us doing experiments on pH and charting the results. Those that took the time to do many small iterations had smoother line charts. And in the Materials Labs, where we looked at tensile strength of metal samples, the three samples that were tested using the machine's default setting produced consistently poor results. The next three samples, that had much smaller iterations in the increase in force applied, ended up showing the extra dip at the end of the elastic region. While you may not all understand this, the key point is that smaller iterations produced more precise results.

Another example is the Vostok ice cores. They calculated the temperature based on samples that were taken each meter. The charts that are available on the Internet show peaks and valleys. It is fairly consistent, but there is a problem. They only measured once each meter of depth. Each meter covered about 30 years near the top and 619 near the bottom. A lot can happen in 500 years. How do they know they found the true maximum? Sure they got fairly close, but it is indeed just an estimate of what the max is. An estimate. Now where did I see that word? Oh yes, in the first line of this post:

"Global temperatures are dangerously close to the highest ever estimated to have occurred in the past million years, scientists reported Monday."

Now this is from a news article, so it does not mention how the data was collected. If it was from ocean sediment, for example, then could further sampling have yielded a more accurate peak value? How accurate is the calculation for estimating the temperature? It is these questions that the news article does not address.

Does anyone have a link to the study, or at least the name of the study for which James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies was the study leader?

And while you dissemble the ice continues to melt.

And while you post your comment, the ice continues to thicken.

The words 'Straws' and 'Clutching' come to mind.

Blacknad.

JR wrote:
"And while you post your comment, the ice continues to thicken."

Where JR? Where? Point me to a link to a peer reviewed study that substantiates this.

Here?
http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/glacier_retreat.htm

Or perhaps here?
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=16441

Or perhaps here?
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/melting.shtml

Oh I know you mean here?
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=106798&org=NSF

Since you obviously don't believe or trust serious science perhaps I should link in someone with a vested financial interest in being objective:
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2006/03/24/66732.htm

Keep it up JR. I have an entire university libfrary with citation indexes at my disposal. I can quite quickly send you tens of thousands of links to studies in peer reviewed journals if you wish to continue this.

Note to Blacknad.
Of course the ice gets thinner in some places and thicker in others. JR and his ilk are grasping at straws. What matters is the planet in its entirety. And most importantly the salinity of the mid-Atlantic conveyor.

They can dissemble all they want. But when the salinity drops to a low enough level the conveyor stops and the only thing we will here from them is whining about why no one told them earlier.

see, this right here is the total problem.

glacers expand and contract all the time. in years hot years they contract, and since this study was done during the second hottest year in recent years, and the hottest year they had the sats working, its only expected for them to contract some what. these articles dont give the any data that allows you to see if its a general pattern or a specific one.

worse that that, is the to unsubstanciated theory of the "mid-Atlantic conveyor disruption". There is only evidence that this has happen once and that was caused by an extreamly large amount of fresh water bursting through ice dams in north america. the melting of the ice glacers, if it is happening, would not put that much fresh water in the mid-Atlantic conveyor belt at one time. it would have time to react much as it has for thousands of years.

So the belt changes its northern most part a few miles or even a few dozen, this would not have that great an effect. a few areas, might get a little colder for a few years until the belt recorrected itself. maybe a few areas would get warmer, maybe a few areas dryer and another a little wetter. it would only be a short term change, and would quickly fix itself.

yet listen to global warming alarmist and they will tell you that it will kill off every human on the face of the earth.

of course there are only about 50 zillion things that can kill off every human on the face of the earth, yet we still keep going.

DA Morgan, you proveded five links. The first one ( http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/glacier_retreat.htm ) is a condensed version of a 1998 study. It shows that the glaciers in Montana have been shrinking since the Little Ice Age. Table 1 shows "Glacier sizes at the end of the 'Little Ice Age' appear under '1850 Area'." The rest (28 of 39 glaciers) are single year values, most (25 of 39 glaciers) of which come from 1966. The values that were updated show that the earth has warmed since the little ice age. That does not surprise me. How does that contribute to your argument of anthropogenic global warming?

It also discusses some glaciers in specifics like the Agassiz and Jackson glaciers. "Retreat rates increased steadily to 14-42 m a-1 by 1926, and to 112-117 m a-1 by 1932." Is the 14 for Agassiz and the 42 for Jackson? Unless I am reading it wrong, the difference is at least (117-42=75m or 112-14=98m) 75 meters of retreat in the six years between 1926 and 1932 (12.5 m/year). In the 14 years between 1979 and 1993, it only retreated 50 meters (3.6 m/year). In other words, it seems like it was hotter in Montana during the late 1920's than it was in the 1980's. How does that contribute to your argument of greenhouse effect? Actually, it shows that 80's were warmer than 1850, but are cooler than the early 1930's.

The next link shows how the Upsala glacier retreated in the 4 years up to 2004. All that means is that the region around that glacier is now warmer than when the glacier was growing. That news article says that a "worldwide retreat of glaciers was observed during the twentieth century and most of the Patagonia's glaciers, including Upsala were no exception." That most means that there are exceptions. How much is most? I wonder how the scientists quantified it if at all. What percentage makes up that most. And the retreat does not mention thickening like Greenland was thickening.

It had a link to http://pubs.usgs.gov/prof/p1386i/chile-arg/wet/historic.html , so I checked out that page too. Similar to the Agassiz glacier, this shows that the San Quint?n glacier retreated 2 km in the 14 years starting in 1921 (143 m/year). It receded another 3.7 km in the 33 years starting in 1959 (112 m/year). This is confirmed by Table 11 (Mean variation of the glaciers area) lower on the page. Some showed an increase in area retreat rate while some showed a decrease in retreat rate. Table 12 shows the area of some glaciers grew while others receded between 1945 and 1986. In both cases the net was negative. That page does not mention thickness at all, so it is incomplete, but interesting none the less. Does it prove your dangerously warm hypothesis? No. It does prove that the area of some glaciers were growing while others were shrinking between 1945 and 1986 with a net area reduction of 3.7%. Not too bad from a link from a news article. Now we just need data on the rest of the world's glaciers. And it would be nice if they had data comparing it to the 1800's and early 1900's if not thousands of years so a more general trend could be seen.

You have not provided a link to any study that conclusively shows global warming. Why do you provide links to news articles (like the rest of your links) when you won't accept them yourself?

Anyway, the last 3 links are all about the same two studies. The first of the three says that the studies "show that Arctic summers by 2100 may be as warm as they were nearly 130,000 years ago." Ignoring the "may be" since this data is from computer models (that are out by at least 12% to 41%), that page contradicts your original post about 2005 having the highest temps for the past million years. There is a big difference between 130,000 years and 1,000,000 years.

The second of the bottom 3 links starts with the picture of how much thicker Greenland's ice is now as compared to the last Interglaciation. It also has the 130,000 years quote. Again, this contradicts your original post about 2005 having the highest temps for the past million years.

The last has the same "Arctic summers by 2100 may be as warm as they were nearly 130,000 years ago" quote. So are you contradicting yourself on purpose? Or have you simply changed your argument without letting us know? If you are trying to use these to argue against my glaciers thickening post, then why not post links that mention thickening instead of just area?

So what do we have from your links? That some glaciers shrank quickly in the early 1930. We also know that some increased while others decreased between 1945 and 1986 with a net area shrink rate of -3.7%. The oldest data included in those links was a picture from a computer model of the thickness of Greenland's ice during the last interglaciation. Since you suggest that you are not grasping at straws, perhaps you can fill me in on how this proves that 2005 was the warmest in a million years. Or at least, please explain what does this all prove to you?

G'day all,

I've realised by reading these posts that they are becoming more and more an excersise in futility.

Science is rarely discussed. A great deal of news articles are used and even with the science, there tends to be a counter for pretty much any argument you wish to put. Polar bear population increasing? No, not according to this study. Ice sheets getting thicker? Antarctica is a bit difficult to argue because most studies show that it is but the Arctic? Pick any position and there will be a study to back it up.

I went to the trouble of reading Dr Hansen et al's "Dangerous" paper, as dense and pretty much unreadable as it is. It normally would not interest me because it is all about models. That is, guesses as to what might happen if this happens or that factor turns out to do this. The model mainly used isn't even a particularly good one. It is very course and has been constantly adjusted because as it stood to start with it did not match the real world even remotely. Tweak any model enough and you can eventually make it match known data, and that is where I actually found the whole thing interesting.

The tweaks in this case have resulted in the model sort of matching the weather station data. It would seem that the satellite data is used when it comes to ice sheets because that is all there is but with respect to world average temperatures and the figures relied upon are the weather station data. But from 1979 there has been much better data. It is ignored.

Surely even those that think that global warming is a looming disaster can realise there is something wrong with a prediction that relies on data that is not as accurate as alternatives.

Is this really good science? Does it conform to appropriate scientific methodology?

If I get a response that says "Show me a peer reviewed research paper that refutes this" I'm really going to ignore the comment with the contempt it deserves. This is a study not even published. It is a study of prediction, not of what has been happening. There really should be no research that counters it because what research can you do in this case? A different model?

But any reasonable scientist should be able to look at any research and, if there are glaring flaws, recognise them. If the data used is known not to accord with more accurate data, I would assume most people would view the results with some skepticism. Either that or they are incapable of thinking for themselves.

As to the Vostok ice cores, recent re-examination has shown that these cores show that the increase in CO2 follows warming periods by an average of 600 years. The more detailed the examination, the worst the position becomes for those that relate CO2 to a climate forcing. Seems to becoming clearer that it is the other way around. And as to feedback mechanism, the CO2 seems to continue to rise for a time even when the temperatures decline again. That does not suggest a feedback mechanism but rather a simply cause and effect. Warmer temperatures increase CO2 with a significant lag. I would even have assumed that increasing CO2 would have had some effect on retaining the warmer period by the latest research on the Vostok cores does not suggest that at all.

But it is easy to twist this around and argue something else. This is climate. It is complex. Complex also means contradictory evidence is the norm, not the exception.

My last word for a while, until something interesting crops up that is worth responding to, or I come across some research that I believe will be of interest to those that may be interested, is that THIS period of time is only considered to be warming because of one thing, weather station data. Without that, the Time magazine of 1974 would be the prevailing view or perhaps there would be no prevailing view at all and Climate Science would have almost no funding at all, perhaps a good thing overall. Then maybe that could directly tackle the spread of infectious diseases, build better levees for cities and better warning systems for hurricanes, tornadoes and things that humans can do something about. And perhaps attack polution problems simply because car exhausts and burning coal do have environmental hazards.

The whole thing could be settled with research that would cost of not that many millions. Get all known weather station data. Work out a consistent approach that no one can condemn as biased. Remove urban effect data. Check every single station that is going to be used for local issues and then create a data set that is comparable over time and covers the major regions of the earth.

It's interesting that Mr Morgan is willing to argue the issues so veheremently on this site but not once has addressed the issues of weather station data, has not indicated that he has even looked at the data, let alone done any experimentation. For that matter, no one else has indicated they have looked at it either. If your position is so secure then looking at the data should quickly show up my logic error and you can be satisfied that I'm just a crank who knows nothing about climate change.


Regards


Richard

dehammer wrote:
"see, this right here is the total problem.
glacers expand and contract all the time."

No it is not. Your argument is equivalent to saying some days are warmer than others. Well to quote Bart Simpson: Duh!

Climatologists are not so incompetent as to not understand and appreciate normal cycles. What is happening now is not normal.

so how are they taking into account that some years are colder than others and some are hotter than others, when they dont have the data for more than a small number of years.

appearantly it has happen several times in the past, so what is so unnormal about it.

what they are basically saying is that in the hottest year they have the data on, more of it melted than other years.

your arguement is the same as going out on a hot winter day and seeing that a lot of ice had melted off, then proclaiming that it was summer.

quantity <> quality.

You guys are great on writing chapters where a single link, if it existed, would suffice.

JR: One glacier is an indication of nothing. Not even when it agrees with me.

we would be happy to discuss any link to REAL data that you can provide, but so far all of your links have either proven you wrong or have been nothing but news article stating opinions by people who believed in global warming without any proof of it.

so far the only links to data that you have provided
1) admitted that they had to adjust old data to "correct" them, yet you would not accept that they did.

2)had discrepancy in the data that global warming alarmist are willing to over look, but those who are not believers cant. GWA either ignore it when those discrepancy are shown or claim its part of the feed back, ignoring the fact that there had to be a starting point before the feedback began.

If your going to claim man is responsible, try answering some of the discrepancies first.

if your going to claim that we dont give links to disprove it, show us the answers to the discredits we give to the data you do supply.

dehammer wrote:
"we would be happy to discuss any link to REAL data that you can provide"

Lets try it the other way. How about we discuss a REAL data from a link you provide?

If you had something you'd reference it instead of joining with JR and RS and writing large volumes of personal opinion.

This is the problem with global warming alarmist.

they believe they can make statements about the end of the world, give no data, then demand data from those who claim there is no danger. news articles are intended to sell subscription so alarmist aritcle sell well, but they dont give any thing but a slanted sensationalist view. This forum is not about sensationalism. If there is proof that things are changing show it. otherwise, everything is about the same as always.

Alarmist dont believe they have to prove their alarms are real.

Have you ever heard the story of the boy that cried woof.

Alarmist are crying wolf and have been for years, yet when the real danger occurs (polution, destructions of habatats, etc) no one will want to hear about because they believe its just more alarmist hype.

show us real unaltered data (weve already shown you where the data they claim was altered) and we will listen to your claims that the wolf is coming. Until then, stop spotlighting a non existant thread and worry about the wolf that is at your door.

dehammer wrote:
"This is the problem with global warming alarmist."

How about the problem with those that are not alarmed? Their inability to point to a single scientific study that supports their delusion?

Dan,

You understand that this is like debating with religious fundamentalists or conspiracy theorists.

It'll be a warm day at the North Pole before they get it.

Blacknad.

we dont have to point to a study that supports out "delusion" all we have to do is point out the flaws in the studies that alarmist use as their bible.

you talk about how the peer review system works so well, but just look at what happen when one paper decided to publish an article pointing out the flaws in an accepted study.

three editors quit because the chief editor dared to publish something that questioned global warming. not the evidence, the fact that it was published against their demands that it be censored. several major science magazines immeadiately attacked that paper, not on merit of the article, but one the fact that they dared to publish something from someone who has a cousin that works as a gas pump operator. Several major scientist argued that their data could not be used in such a way, even though it had been used by others to show that global warming was a fact.

not a single person argued that the facts were not there, they argued that the paper could not publish it. even to the point of trying to get the paper shut down.

that is censorship and its all across the board. getting an article published that disproves global warming is like trying to get the vatican to publish a book on witchcraft spells.

on the other hand, the few actual times that someone has come up with actual data, the flaws were pointed out, just to be ignored as not relavant.

your right, but were the sceptics and you guys the r.f.'s or conspiracy theorist.

in both this case and the conspiracy theorist situation, the sceptic demand proof, but only get second hand opinions.

When it becomes warm at the north pole, we will be the ones pointing out how hot the solar activity is and once again, it will be people like you that say that it has nothing to do with the heat wave.

that is if we have not choked ourselfs to death with our polutions first. with all the money going to stop a global warming trend that either has no connection to co2 or very little and thus is something we cant control, there is no money going to clean up the mess were making of this planet. one of these days that is going to be too much and we will find that cant live on top of a garbage pile. Of course the alarmist will still be blaiming it on co2 emission.

G'day all,

I have to disagree with you dehammer. The study to which you refer, actually did have some faults. Not necessarily any worse than those lauded pro global warming studies but faults just the same. Their definitions of what constituted a warm period was just too broad and while many of the periods they were discussing would be considered warm they simplified their reasoning by pointing to increased rainfall when the subject was about temperature. It might have made the process easier but it did leave them open to critisicm as to the scientific method adopted. Where they wrong? Actually not often, from the other data they had but less than perfect scientific method is less than perfect scientific method regardless of what it supports.

What happened after the publication is a rather different story and I tend to agree with you. What should have happened is a correction should have been published, omitting conclusions tha the scientific method's faults caused concern about, and reinforcing the main points where the definititions, even when tightened up to something reasonable still enabled the periods to be considered to be warm. That didn't happen of course and passions did run rather high.


Regards


Richard

Blacknad wrote:
"It'll be a warm day at the North Pole before they get it."

I know: I'm not trying to convince them as they had their minds made up before they were old enough to read.

I am trying to make sure that lurkers, seeing their nonsense unchallenge, don't give it credence by virtue of the fact that it has been posted at a "science" site.

If the moderators saw as part of their job presenting science ... rather than just being the "nice" police I wouldn't feel compelled to point out the obvious over and over and over and over and over and over again.

actually i was aware of the faults, but it pointed out the flaws in the original articles. but mostly it proved that there scientist that disagree. according to some on this forum (who pointed out many times) there are none that disaree.

the main point is that the rest of the "peer review" system attempted to destroy the article, even before reading it, simply because it disagreed with their statements.

if it were part of their job to stop the nonsense of science, several of your stuff would not fit the definition. such as using an article to say something when a reading of it would show that it disagreed with your statement, esp when you refused to acknowledge the mistake.

the thing is that we dont have our mind made up, unlike you. we just want to see the data to prove it. so far the data has proven quite short of that mark.