32,000 scientists dissent from global-warming “consensus”

[Signal 11]

When was the IPCC report written?

Which one?

When did the antarctic ice sheet start growing?

I don't know.

Do you actually have a point you would like to make?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yet for increased sea ice to form at the antarctic the water must be getting colder.

Increased sea ice? Where is this happening?

 

[WouldBe]

The IPCC have been using that 0.5 - 1.5m Sea level rise for years.

As I understand it the antarctic ice shelf has only been growing for the last couple of years.

So fot the IPCC to have taken account of the growing antarctic ice shelf when writting their 1996 report they must have been psychic.

 

[laptop]

When did the antarctic ice sheet start growing?

It's abundantly clear that both the Arctic and the Antarctic were ice-free and warm from about 100 million to 40 million years ago.

http://environment.newscientist.com...11.200-when-crocodiles-roamed-the-arctic.html

Some time after 40 million years ago

 

[Signal 11]

So fot the IPCC to have taken account of the growing antarctic ice shelf when writting their 1996 report they must have been psychic.

Why must they?

 

[bigfish]

deleted

 

[WouldBe]

Why must they?

Because the sea ice growth in 2007 and 2008 hadn't happened at the time of writing the 1996 IPCC report and going on the 'global warming' theory wasn't expected to happen either.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

So as of the last report they lost the ability to predict behavior. A bit harsh. Oh, no, wait, you didn't check? Oh that'd be it.

 

[WouldBe]

Didn't check what?

That the ice caps are melting, the seas are going to rise. We're doomed, all doomed.

or that the IPCC report says

Well the ice caps may melt or they may not or one might melt while the other grows yet whatever might happen we're doomed, all doomed.

 

[Signal 11]

I'm not sure why you suddenly seem to be so interested in the "1996 report". I'm not aware of one from 1996. The most recent is from 2007.

Anyway, first you claimed...

as a lot of the antarctic is land and increased snow fall on the land will effectively lower sea levels as you're removing water from the seas by increased evaporation and depositing it on land where it stays.

And then you said they would have to be "psychic" to take the antarctic snowfall into account...

Because the sea ice growth in 2007 and 2008 hadn't happened at the time of writing the 1996 IPCC report and going on the 'global warming' theory wasn't expected to happen either.

Wrong on both counts...

Satellite radar altimetry measurements indicate that the East Antarctic ice-sheet interior north of 81.6°S increased in mass by 45 ± 7 billion metric tons per year from 1992 to 2003. Comparisons with contemporaneous meteorological model snowfall estimates suggest that the gain in mass was associated with increased precipitation. A gain of this magnitude is enough to slow sea-level rise by 0.12 ± 0.02 millimeters per year.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5730/1898

Satellite measurements estimate that sea level has been rising at a rate of 9 to 15 inches per century (2.4-3.8 mm/yr) since 1993, more than 50% faster than the rate that tide gauges estimate over the last century. (IPCC, 2007)

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentslc.html

So actually, yes it had been measured before 1996 and no it does not lower the sea level or even significantly affect the rate of the sea level rise.

Here is what the latest report says (e2a: meaning between now and end of this century):

Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall. However, net loss of ice mass could occur if dynamical ice discharge dominates the ice sheet mass balance.

Source as linked at the top of this post.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

As I understand it, the lull between '45 and '75 can be explained by aerosol emissions. Since the 1970s, industry has become cleaner, manmade aerosols have been reduced, and this has lessened the global cooling effect of aerosols in the atmosphere.

However, over the same period SO2 emissions have been increasing significantly from Asia which is estimated to currently emit 17TgSyr-1 (Streets et al., 2003) and from developing countries (e.g., Boucher and Pham, 2002). The net result of these combined regional reductions and increases leads to uncertainty in whether the global SO2 has increased or decreased since the 1980s (Lefohn et al., 1999; Van Aardenne et al., 2001; Boucher and Pham, 2002),

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Second Draft chapter 2, page 30

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You are right that increased evaporation could lead to more water being held in the atmosphere at any one time. However, the single biggest factor affecting sea levels is that water expands as it is warmed. Plus, of course, the melting of the continental ice sheets is an important factor.

To me the most convincing evidence comes from the past. Essentially, the picture that emerges from all the evidence, from ice cores, archaeology, palaeontology, genetics, etc, is a simple one - the warmer the planet, the higher the sea level.

Some glaciers in Pakistan's Upper Indus River Basin appear to be growing, and a new study suggests that global warming is the cause.

The glacial growth bucks a global trend of shrinking ice fields (photos: melting glaciers) and may shed light on the regionally varying effects of Earth's changing climate.



Meteorological data compiled over the past century show that winter temperatures have been rising in parts of the Western Himalaya, Karakoram, and Hindu Kush mountain ranges (map of Pakistan).

But the region's winter snowfall, which feeds the glaciers, has been increasing. And average summer temperatures, which melt snow and glaciers, have been dropping.

"One of the surprising results we found was a downward trend in summer temperatures," said David Archer, study co-author and a hydrologist at Newcastle University in the United Kingdom.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060911-growing-glaciers.html

 

[Signal 11]

Some glaciers in Pakistan's Upper Indus River Basin appear to be growing

There is regional variation in climate! Amazing!

 

[Signal 11]

Since the 1970s, industry has become cleaner, manmade aerosols have been reduced, and this has lessened the global cooling effect of aerosols in the atmosphere.

uncertainty in whether the global SO2 has increased or decreased since the 1980s

So there's some uncertainty in whether they have gone up again since the end of the decade during which they were reduced.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Glaciers in western Norway are growing at record speeds, contrary to the current global trend, following heavy rain and snowfall in the 1980s and 1990s, Norwegian daily Bergens Tidende said on Sunday.

http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/controversies/afp.html

Growing glaciers:

CANADA Helm Glacier Place Glacier
FRANCE Mt. Blanc
ECUADOR Antizana 15 Alpha Glacier
SWITZERLAND Silvretta Glacier
KIRGHIZTAN Abramov
RUSSIA Maali Glacier

The ice between Canada and southwestern Greenland has reached its highest level in 15 years.

http://sermitsiaq.gl/klima/article30834.ece?lang=EN

the Peritio Moreno formation [Argentina] actually swells with each passing day. Deemed an "advancing glacier," the ice is continually growing and expanding outward, gradually occupying more and more territory. While the glacier is said to move outward at a pace of up to seven feet each day, large chunks of ice falling from the walls make this growth a bit more subtle

http://www.allaboutar.com/ard_cala_perito_moreno.htm

While the news focus has been on the lowest ice extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979 for the Arctic, the Southern Hemisphere (Antarctica) has quietly set a new record for most ice extent since 1979.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a_new_record_for_antartic_total_ice_extent

a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and buttressing arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.

Around the world, vast areas have been buried under some of the heaviest snowfalls in decades. Central and southern China, the United States, and Canada were hit hard by snowstorms. In China, snowfall was so heavy that over 100,000 houses collapsed under the weight of snow

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/global_warming_or_cooling/2008/02/19/73798.html

The association of the International Glaciospeleology Survey has studied the glaciokarstic phenomenon in many glaciers of the world, from Washington State, Canada, Alaska etc. A new forming glacier in the Crater of Mount St. Helens has obtained the most exciting results, on both the exploration and scientific research fronts.

http://www.glaciercaves.com/html/anewgl_1.HTM

the best-measured glacier in North America, the Nisqually on Mount Rainier, has been growing since 1931.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Ice_Age.html

There is evidence that the McGinnis Glacier, a little-known tongue of ice in the central Alaska Range, has surged

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-03/uoaf-cda031506.php

 

[bigfish]

Oh yes ...

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/search.php?searchid=6538731

Nothing's coming up on the link Bernie. Could you do a single post link, so we can see what the hell your on about?

Cheers.

 

[bigfish]

Earth's Climate is Approaching 'Dangerous' Point...

Yeah, right... so why didn't Earth's Climate Approach A 'Dangerous' Point in the past when carbon dioxide levels were 20 times higher than they are right now, like?

 

[bigfish]

Spiked online is run by Living Marxism (LM) who have a consistent record in downplaying environmental concerns and promoting GM in Britain.

Well good for them, that's great news. What's the greenshirt's food plan - offing 5 billion people?

Sourcewatch on Living Marxism

Sourcewatchwatch

Sourcewatch is funded by The Center for Media and Democracy. The Center's Board of Directors includes one Joseph Mendelson. Mendelson is a lawyer for Douglas Tompkins' Foundation for Deep Ecology, established by Tompkins with a $17 million "gift".

Mr Tomkins made his fortune by cracking the lash in SE Asian sweatshops and sucking the blood out of human beings before selling his Esprit de Corp apparel company for $150,000,000 to a partnership that rather conveniently includes his wife. Today, Tompkins lives in a remote and secluded compound set in 800,000 acres of pristine Chilean/Argentinian wilderness that comes complete with landing-strip and 3 gas guzzling airplanes.

Sweatshop Guy surveys his vast estate before taking off in
one of his gas guzzling planes to pollute the pristine atmosphere​

Sweatshop Guy's Foundation also funds

1. the Center for Food Safety [i.e. no GM food crops for poor farmers and poor people]

2. the Turning Point Project [i.e. let's wind back the wheel of time]

3. the International Center for Technology Assessment [i.e. outlaw all machines except the wife's sewing machines]

Doug's message: 'Technological civilization is destroying nature and human life.'

Doug's solution: 'Dismantle technological civilization. Simple as that.'

bigfish translation: Doug's a crackpot eco-fascist misanthrope nutjob who wants to return civilization to the feudalistic relations of medieval times, naturally with him in charge.

 

[bigfish]

Accurately predicting climate change is a tricky business. Your point?

Well, the point is, your own top experts, like Jim Hansen of NASA/GISS for example, keep getting their predictions completely wrong!

This chart is from the appendices of Hansen's famous speech to Congress in 1988 showing his predictions for man-made global warming. The red line shows what has actually happened.

And this chart shows where temperature was when he gave his famous speech in 1988 and where it is now in 2008.

 

[bigfish]

^ Yes, he's also posted about how the sun is made of metal (really!)

Well yes, I have posted on that subject and if you can look past you manifold prejudices, you'll see that what I said is supported by scientific evidence, For example, images of the Sun, created at the frequency of various ferrite ions by the SOHO and TRACE satellite systems reveal a consistent solid surface below the photosphere. Images which support the earlier discovery, made by Professor Oliver Manuel and a team of graduate students from the University of Missouri-Rolla, that the interior of the Sun is composed of elements common in meteorites, on Earth and on other rocky planets orbiting close to the Sun.

So your point is what exactly?

 

[free spirit]

As you're aware, many of the other important factors aren't taken into consideration, or at least properly taken into consideration, by the IPCC.

Aerosols. Water vapour. Clouds.

IPCC 2001a:7.2.2.4.1

Well, I see that this post, made hours ago, has been greeted with deafening silence.

CO2 is increasing, and CO2 can cause higher temperatures, but the question is, what will happen in future? The problem, as I've pointed out, is that current models don't adequately take all factors into account in determining how much, if any, the temperature will rise.


I talked about clouds above. Now let's see what the IPCC says about aerosols/particles:



IPCC 1996a:295

So you say, but to get back to the IPCC, here's what they say:

there is no agreement on whether it will cool or warm the climate.

They agree that the cloud effect will equal half of the CO2 effect in the 21st century, but they can't agree as to whether the effect will be to cool, or warm, the climate.

Surely you can understand the significance of that.

It's like saying, there's a pill you can take, it will either cure you, or kill you.

You say they've built the uncertainty into the models.With respect, you can't build that much uncertainty into a model.


To go a step further with your point, which model do we go with, the one that says clouds will cool, or the one that says it will warm?

It's not my point. It's an admission by the IPCC that they don't understand some of the fundamental climate influences.

aaargh...

OK Johnny, can you please stop quoting random bits from outdated IPCC reports. The science has moved on a fair amount since 1996, and even since 2001.

If you really want to get a proper picture of the current understanding on all the issues you raise you need to read all of the 217 pages of the 'Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing' chapter of the IPPC working group I report "The Physical Science Basis".

There's nearly 30 pages detailing the latest understanding of aerosol impacts mostly based on studies completed since the 2001 report, so I'm fucked if I'm going to try and explain it here - read the report.

Bottom line though, is that their are multiple different effects from multiple different types of aerosols, and each of these effects changes depending upon multiple other effects such as the geographic location, whether the aerosols are over a light or dark colored surface, whether the aerosols are above or below clouds, the colour of the clouds.

So yes, working out what the combined overall effect of aerosols from 1750 to 2005 currently has a high degree of uncertainty attached to it, as illustrated in the 1st diagram below (which is the one used in the main report). The 2nd diagram breaks down the 'total aerosol' section of the 1st diagram into some of it's component parts, and the 3rd diagram outlines some of the different processes by which aerosols effect the climate.

[source - IPPC ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf]

as I say, please read this chapter of the report and stop quoting stuff from 1996 / 2001.

 

[scifisam]

Sweatshop Guy surveys his vast estate before taking off in
one of his gas guzzling planes to pollute the pristine atmosphere​

That is one of the worst photoshopped pictures I have ever seen. If it were real, it would be the 'before' shot just prior to the propellers chopping his head off. Must try harder.

 

[yield]

Earth's Climate is Approaching 'Dangerous' Point

Yeah, right... so why didn't Earth's Climate Approach A 'Dangerous' Point in the past when carbon dioxide levels were 20 times higher than they are right now, like?

bigfish you do realise that's MILLIONS of years.

Dangerous from a human perspective.

Right?!?

Well yes, I have posted on that subject and if you can look past you manifold prejudices, you'll see that what I said is supported by scientific evidence, For example, images of the Sun, created at the frequency of various ferrite ions by the SOHO and TRACE satellite systems reveal a consistent solid surface below the photosphere. Images which support the earlier discovery, made by Professor Oliver Manuel and a team of graduate students from the University of Missouri-Rolla, that the interior of the Sun is composed of elements common in meteorites, on Earth and on other rocky planets orbiting close to the Sun.

So your point is what exactly?

Manifold prejudices...

 

[free spirit]

Well, the point is, your own top experts, like Jim Hansen of NASA/GISS for example, keep getting their predictions completely wrong!

This chart is from the appendices of Hansen's famous speech to Congress in 1988 showing his predictions for man-made global warming. The red line shows what has actually happened.

And this chart shows where temperature was when he gave his famous speech in 1988 and where it is now in 2008.

lol - I like the way that graph points out the el nino impact on the 1998 temperature, but fails to point out that the current La Nina event is the strongest for 20 years, and is combined with us being at the bottom of the solar cycle... and the point in 1988 highlighted was at the tail end of a big el nino event, and (IIRC) the highest global temperature on record upto that point.

What exactly is it that you're trying to demonstrate? That the el nino / la nina cycle has a big cyclical impact on the worlds climate?

eta - I take it that you now accept the role the 1997-8 El Nino event played in 1998's global remperature spike?

 

[free spirit]

Yeah, right... so why didn't Earth's Climate Approach A 'Dangerous' Point in the past when carbon dioxide levels were 20 times higher than they are right now, like?

erm, right, so do you have data for all the other factors that influence global temperatures as well then?

anyway, what exactly do you class as a dangerous point? That graph shows the global average temperature being nearly 10 degrees above current temperatures for most of the last 600 million years - that'd strike me as being a rather dangerous temperature rise (dangerous for mankinds ability to sustain 7-9billion people on the planet that is)

 

[free spirit]

Bigfish...as the only point on that graph when CO2 levels were anywhere close to 20 times present levels, and the temperatures weren't close to 10 degrees above current levels is the period around 450 million years ago at the end of the Ordovician era, I assume this is the point in time you're on about when you so foolishly ask the question

so why didn't Earth's Climate Approach A 'Dangerous' Point in the past when carbon dioxide levels were 20 times higher than they are right now, like?

I really don't see why you're trying to use an example of a time so long ago that life hadn't even evolved out of the sea properly, and most of the land was in one huge supercontinent in the antarctic circle under thousands of meters of ice to demonstrate that we're not going to experience dangerous climate change by increasing co2 levels now.... particularly when the climate changes in that period wiped out 50% of life on the planet.

[source]

 

[tangentlama]

Yeah, right... so why didn't Earth's Climate Approach A 'Dangerous' Point in the past when carbon dioxide levels were 20 times higher than they are right now, like?

Who are you and what have you done with the Neogene period (the latter of 2 periods that make up the Cenozoic Era, the former being the Paleogene)?

Why are you using such a massive division of geological time?

It's all very well throwing terms about like Cenozoic, but how many people will realise that we are still living in the Cenozoic (Geological) Era from your graph?

Why doesn't your graph show the Neogene period (the current period which comes after the Paleogene period)?

The Neogene period - in which the Pleistocene and Holocene Epochs occur - contains the Holocene Epoch which is the epoch we live in now!

Your graph ends at the Tertiary (now called Paleogene) period, which shows how old your graph is!

It's all very well to attempt to use Geological time to describe our climatic whereabouts for today, but surely your graph should actually show today and be up-to-date with current formal terminology for geological time?!

 

[Signal 11]

For example, images of the Sun, created at the frequency of various ferrite ions by the SOHO and TRACE satellite systems reveal a consistent solid surface below the photosphere.

No they don't. Not a single one of the scientists working on those missions believe the sun has a solid surface. Nor do any other experts in the field. They all agree that the sun is 70% hydrogen and 28% helium. Here is an explanation of the standard model of the sun:

http://fusedweb.llnl.gov/CPEP/Chart_pages/5.Plasmas/SunLayers.html

Your "solid sun" idea comes from one lone nut...

Images which support the earlier discovery, made by Professor Oliver Manuel and a team of graduate students from the University of Missouri-Rolla, that the interior of the Sun is composed of elements common in meteorites, on Earth and on other rocky planets orbiting close to the Sun.

Can you point to anyone else who believes that nonsense?

So your point is what exactly?

My point is that you are a fucking loon.

 

[tangentlama]

It's a crazy question anyway. Back in the Cambrian period in the Paleozoic era, you'd a) not be able to breath air, b) be stuck for a bit of land that wasn't in formation or volcanic (that is if you could find a decent bit of land anyway) so developing legs wouldn't be a main priority unless you had asbestos legs/fins/lungs c) probably have no backbone.

 

[bigfish]

That is one of the worst photoshopped pictures I have ever seen...

Ooh, look, another mock expert.

I'll pass your comments on to the Guardian picture editor.

The great green land grab
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/feb/13/conservation