On Endless Ice, Searching for Clues to Our Future

[rdean]

Scattered across the world's largest island, as big as Alaska and California combined and 80 percent covered by ice, small bands of specialists tended to GPS sites and automatic weather stations, drilled down into the island's frozen cap, and analyzed the air and clouds overhead, working long hours under the midnight sun. All this is to help begin answering a crucial question: How much of Greenland's ice will melt, and how quickly, in a world growing warmer and warming fastest in the Arctic?

If all the ice eventually slipped into the ocean, it would be enough to raise global sea levels by 23 feet. Even a fraction of that would inundate Bangladesh and south Florida, drown small islands and threaten cities as widely dispersed as Shanghai and New York. But as temperatures rise from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the answer isn't coming easily. The challenge -- scientific, logistical -- appears greater than the resources devoted to it.

On Endless Ice, Searching for Clues to Our Future

 

[Mad Scientist]

Global Warming is a myth. E-Mails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) are proof.

"There's no fail like an rdean fail. Ask for it by name!" - Del

 

[Trakar]

Global Warming is a myth. E-Mails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) are proof.

"There's no fail like an rdean fail. Ask for it by name!" - Del

CRU update 2
CRU update 2 - University of East Anglia (UEA)

AAAS Reaffirms Statements on Climate Change and Integrity
AAAS - AAAS News Release - "AAAS Reaffirms Statements on Climate Change and Integrity"

Impact of CRU Hacking on the AMS Statement on Climate Change
Impact of CRU Hacking on the AMS Statement on Climate Change

G8+5 Academies’ joint statement: Climate change and the transformation of energy
technologies for a low carbon future
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years
Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

An Open Letter to Congress from U.S. Scientists on Climate Change and Recently Stolen Emails

As U.S. scientists with substantial expertise on climate change and its impacts on natural ecosystems, our built environment and human well-being, we want to assure policy makers and the public of the integrity of the underlying scientific research and the need for urgent action to reduce heat-trapping emissions. In the last few weeks, opponents of taking action on climate change have misrepresented both the content and the significance of stolen emails to obscure public understanding of climate science and the scientific process.

We would like to set the record straight.

The body of evidence that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming is overwhelming. The content of the stolen emails has no impact whatsoever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming. The scientific process depends on open access to methodology, data, and a rigorous peer-review process. The robust exchange of ideas in the peer-reviewed literature regarding climate science is evidence of the high degree of integrity in this process.

As the recent letter to Congress from 18 leading U.S. scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society, states:

“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. ... If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced.”

These “multiple independent lines of evidence” are drawn from numerous public and private research centers all across the United States and beyond, including several independent analyses of surface temperature data. Even without including analyses from the UK research center from which the emails were stolen, the body of evidence underlying our understanding of human-caused global warming remains robust.

We urge you to take account of this as you make decisions on climate policy.

Signed:
(* Member of National Academy of Sciences)
(Institutional affiliation for identification purposes only)

David Archer, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of the Geophysical Sciences
University of Chicago
Chicago, IL

William C. Clark, Ph.D.*
Harvey Brooks Professor of International Science, Public Policy, and Human Development
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA

Peter C. Frumhoff, Ph.D.
Director of Science and Policy
Chief Scientist, Climate Campaign
Union of Concerned Scientists
Cambridge, MA

Inez Fung, Ph.D.*
Professor of Atmospheric Science
Co-Director, Berkeley Institute of the Environment
University of California
Berkeley Berkeley, CA

Neal Lane, Ph.D.
Professor, Rice University
Former Director, National Science Foundation
Former Director, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
Houston, TX

Michael MacCracken, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs
The Climate Institute
Washington, DC

Pamela Matson, Ph.D.*
Professor, School of Earth Sciences
Stanford University
Stanford, CA

James J. McCarthy, Ph.D.
Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA

Jerry Melillo, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist and Director Emeritus
The Ecosystems Center
Marine Biological Laboratory
Woods Hole, MA

Edward L. Miles, Ph.D.*
Bloedel Professor of Marine Studies and Public Affairs
School of Marine Affairs
Co-Director, Center for Science in the Earth System, JISAO
University of Washington
Seattle, WA

Mario J. Molina, Ph.D.*
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California, San Diego
Nobel Laureate, Chemistry San Diego, CA

Ellen Mosley-Thompson, Ph.D.*
Director, Byrd Polar Research Center
Professor of Geography and University Distinguished Scholar
The Ohio State University
Columbus, OH

Gerald R. North, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Sciences and Oceanography
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX

Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D.
Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs
Department of Geosciences and
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ

Jonathan T. Overpeck, Ph.D.
Co-Director, Institute of the Environment
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ

Ronald G. Prinn, Ph.D.
TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Science
Director, Center for Global Change Science
Co-Director, Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA

Alan Robock, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor
Rutgers University
President, Atmospheric Sciences Section, American Geophysical Union
Chair-Elect, Atmospheric and Hydrospheric Sciences Section, American Association for the Advancement of Science
New Brunswick, NJ

Benjamin D. Santer, Ph.D.
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, CA

William H. Schlesinger, Ph.D.*
President, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Millbrook, NY

Daniel P. Schrag, Ph.D.
Sturgis Hooper Professor of Geology
Professor of Environmental Science and Engineering
Director, Harvard University Center for the Environment
Cambridge, MA

Drew Shindell, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
New York, NY

Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor Emeritus and Research Professor
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, CA

Warren M. Washington, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Boulder, CO

Donald J. Wuebbles, Ph.D.
The Harry E. Preble Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Urbana, IL

Carl Wunsch, Ph.D.*
Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physical Oceanography
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA

 

[westwall]

Global Warming is a myth. E-Mails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) are proof.

"There's no fail like an rdean fail. Ask for it by name!" - Del

CRU update 2
CRU update 2 - University of East Anglia (UEA)

AAAS Reaffirms Statements on Climate Change and Integrity
AAAS - AAAS News Release - "AAAS Reaffirms Statements on Climate Change and Integrity"

Impact of CRU Hacking on the AMS Statement on Climate Change
Impact of CRU Hacking on the AMS Statement on Climate Change

G8+5 Academies’ joint statement: Climate change and the transformation of energy
technologies for a low carbon future
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years
Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

An Open Letter to Congress from U.S. Scientists on Climate Change and Recently Stolen Emails

As U.S. scientists with substantial expertise on climate change and its impacts on natural ecosystems, our built environment and human well-being, we want to assure policy makers and the public of the integrity of the underlying scientific research and the need for urgent action to reduce heat-trapping emissions. In the last few weeks, opponents of taking action on climate change have misrepresented both the content and the significance of stolen emails to obscure public understanding of climate science and the scientific process.

We would like to set the record straight.

The body of evidence that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming is overwhelming. The content of the stolen emails has no impact whatsoever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming. The scientific process depends on open access to methodology, data, and a rigorous peer-review process. The robust exchange of ideas in the peer-reviewed literature regarding climate science is evidence of the high degree of integrity in this process.

As the recent letter to Congress from 18 leading U.S. scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society, states:

“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. ... If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced.”

These “multiple independent lines of evidence” are drawn from numerous public and private research centers all across the United States and beyond, including several independent analyses of surface temperature data. Even without including analyses from the UK research center from which the emails were stolen, the body of evidence underlying our understanding of human-caused global warming remains robust.

We urge you to take account of this as you make decisions on climate policy.

Signed:
(* Member of National Academy of Sciences)
(Institutional affiliation for identification purposes only)

David Archer, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of the Geophysical Sciences
University of Chicago
Chicago, IL

William C. Clark, Ph.D.*
Harvey Brooks Professor of International Science, Public Policy, and Human Development
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA

Peter C. Frumhoff, Ph.D.
Director of Science and Policy
Chief Scientist, Climate Campaign
Union of Concerned Scientists
Cambridge, MA

Inez Fung, Ph.D.*
Professor of Atmospheric Science
Co-Director, Berkeley Institute of the Environment
University of California
Berkeley Berkeley, CA

Neal Lane, Ph.D.
Professor, Rice University
Former Director, National Science Foundation
Former Director, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
Houston, TX

Michael MacCracken, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs
The Climate Institute
Washington, DC

Pamela Matson, Ph.D.*
Professor, School of Earth Sciences
Stanford University
Stanford, CA

James J. McCarthy, Ph.D.
Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA

Jerry Melillo, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist and Director Emeritus
The Ecosystems Center
Marine Biological Laboratory
Woods Hole, MA

Edward L. Miles, Ph.D.*
Bloedel Professor of Marine Studies and Public Affairs
School of Marine Affairs
Co-Director, Center for Science in the Earth System, JISAO
University of Washington
Seattle, WA

Mario J. Molina, Ph.D.*
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California, San Diego
Nobel Laureate, Chemistry San Diego, CA

Ellen Mosley-Thompson, Ph.D.*
Director, Byrd Polar Research Center
Professor of Geography and University Distinguished Scholar
The Ohio State University
Columbus, OH

Gerald R. North, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Sciences and Oceanography
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX

Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D.
Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs
Department of Geosciences and
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ

Jonathan T. Overpeck, Ph.D.
Co-Director, Institute of the Environment
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ

Ronald G. Prinn, Ph.D.
TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Science
Director, Center for Global Change Science
Co-Director, Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA

Alan Robock, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor
Rutgers University
President, Atmospheric Sciences Section, American Geophysical Union
Chair-Elect, Atmospheric and Hydrospheric Sciences Section, American Association for the Advancement of Science
New Brunswick, NJ

Benjamin D. Santer, Ph.D.
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, CA

William H. Schlesinger, Ph.D.*
President, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Millbrook, NY

Daniel P. Schrag, Ph.D.
Sturgis Hooper Professor of Geology
Professor of Environmental Science and Engineering
Director, Harvard University Center for the Environment
Cambridge, MA

Drew Shindell, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
New York, NY

Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor Emeritus and Research Professor
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, CA

Warren M. Washington, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Boulder, CO

Donald J. Wuebbles, Ph.D.
The Harry E. Preble Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Urbana, IL

Carl Wunsch, Ph.D.*
Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physical Oceanography
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA

Ahhhh yes the ever popular appeal to authority. I guess you missed the part where they have been cooking the books eh? Here was one of your icons. This is the type of work they do. You really think we care about their work now? Really? BTW it is now widely recognized that the emails were LEAKED and not stolen.

Laughably Monet defends his report as "sloppy" but not fraudulent. So tell me "Defender of the Faith" at what point does "sloppy" equate to fraud? When does poor scientific methodology get the disdain it deserves? When do you ask them the real hard questions about why their computer models are so bad? When do you finally realise that they are lying to you? Over the last three years every major claim made by the AGW cult has been proven wrong, grossly overstated or now in this case nonexistent. When will you finally have had enough and admit the real truth?

BTW, I'm not holding my breath.




"(NaturalNews) Images of periled polar bears sinking into arctic seas because of melting polar ice caps have become an iconic symbol of the devastating consequences of so-called global warming. But a new government investigation into the supposed science surrounding this now-infamous urban legend has revealed that it was likely nothing more than a pseudoscientific hoax propagated by faulty math and perfunctory observations.

According to a recent report by Human Events, special investigators from the US government's Interior Department (ID) have found that a scientific paper published in a 2006 issue of the journal Polar Biology is filled with baseless assumptions about four specific polar bear deaths -- and this eventually became the foundational argument for the fight against global warming. But in reality, the deaths may have had nothing to do with melting ice caps, and everything to do with a simple windstorm.

It all stems from an unusual air observation of what appeared to be four dead polar bears floating in the sea. From 1,500 feet (457 meters) in the air, observers reported to study author and biologist Charles Monnett, as well as contributor Jeffrey Gleason, that dead polar bears had been observed, which the duo later used to make various statements, including that "drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open-water periods continues."

According to investigators, Monnett's calculations concerning polar bears' rate of survival, however, are flawed because he not only failed to verify that the four dead polar bears he witnessed were the same ones that he saw a week prior, but he also allegedly used faulty percentages in the process. As a result, polar bears ended up getting listed as a protected species under the Endangered Species Act, even though they are likely not endangered, and are not dying at the rates to which Monnett had implied.

Worse, the observed polar bear carcasses were never actually recovered and properly examined to determine their cause of death. So paper statements implying that ice caps were to blame are grounded in baseless assumption, not scientific observation.

Gleason denies that his and Monnett's paper intended to link the deaths to global warming, having told investigators that they were likely caused by a simple windstorm rather. However, Eric May, an ID investigator, responded by saying that the link to global warming was "inferred" in the paper, which tends to make logical sense in light of the paper's strong verbiage concerning ice packs and complete lack of reference to a potential windstorm.


Peer review process for polar bear paper may have been skewed; study data was not even aimed at polar bears
Monnett, who currently works as a wildlife biologist for ID's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, and who also manages 50 million in research studies there, is currently the primary target of the investigation. Disclosure of Monnett's "personal relationships and preparation of scope of work," is also of primary concern because the peer review process used in publishing his landmark polar bear study appears to have been fraudulent as well.

According to Human Events, Monnett's wife, Lisa Rotterman, as well as lead researcher of another questionable polar bear study, Andrew Derocher from the University of Alberta in Canada, both peer reviewed Monnett's polar bear study. Having one's wife review a study is, of course, an obvious conflict of interest. And Derocher, whose own polar bear study is currently under review, also happens to have been acquired by Monnett, which calls into question the integrity of his review as well.

After vehemently defending his work, Monnett eventually admitted that miscalculations and other errors were likely made in his paper, but he referred to such controversy as "sloppy" rather than "scientific misconduct." He also admitted that he and Gleason did not have any proper documentation to back up claims made about observed polar bear trends -- instead, they simply made the "best case" they could with the data they had obtained.

Another important fact is that the duo assembled their paper using data acquired for the purpose of bowhead whale observation and study, not for polar bears. Consequently, the quality of such data for polar bear research is cursory at best, and careless pseudoscience at worst.

"The paper gives the appearance that rigorous surveying was done for polar bears, when it was not. They did not know if the polar bears actually drowned -- they assumed that they had drowned," said Dr. Rob Roy Ramey, a biologist who specializes in endangered species scientific issues for Wildlife Science International, Inc., to Human Events. "There were no statistical tests, just extrapolations made with no accounting for measurement error."

Besides achieving for Monnett and his research endeavors a significant gain in "power, money, authority and recognition," according to Ramey, the acceptance of Monnett's paper and subsequent listing of polar bears as an endangered species due to global warming has, at least until now, represented a foundational pillar of so-called evidence in global warming hysterics. The crumbling of this scientific facade, though, just might spur the much-needed shift in climate change science towards actual evidence-based based research rather than mere scientific semblance."



Global warming fraud: Iconic polar bear on melting ice cap a hoax

 

[percysunshine]

"Even a fraction of that would inundate Bangladesh and south Florida..."

Like...this would be a problem?

 

[gslack]

Global Warming is a myth. E-Mails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) are proof.

"There's no fail like an rdean fail. Ask for it by name!" - Del

CRU update 2
CRU update 2 - University of East Anglia (UEA)

AAAS Reaffirms Statements on Climate Change and Integrity
AAAS - AAAS News Release - "AAAS Reaffirms Statements on Climate Change and Integrity"

Impact of CRU Hacking on the AMS Statement on Climate Change
Impact of CRU Hacking on the AMS Statement on Climate Change

G8+5 Academies’ joint statement: Climate change and the transformation of energy
technologies for a low carbon future
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years
Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

An Open Letter to Congress from U.S. Scientists on Climate Change and Recently Stolen Emails

As U.S. scientists with substantial expertise on climate change and its impacts on natural ecosystems, our built environment and human well-being, we want to assure policy makers and the public of the integrity of the underlying scientific research and the need for urgent action to reduce heat-trapping emissions. In the last few weeks, opponents of taking action on climate change have misrepresented both the content and the significance of stolen emails to obscure public understanding of climate science and the scientific process.

We would like to set the record straight.

The body of evidence that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming is overwhelming. The content of the stolen emails has no impact whatsoever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming. The scientific process depends on open access to methodology, data, and a rigorous peer-review process. The robust exchange of ideas in the peer-reviewed literature regarding climate science is evidence of the high degree of integrity in this process.

As the recent letter to Congress from 18 leading U.S. scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society, states:

“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. ... If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced.”

These “multiple independent lines of evidence” are drawn from numerous public and private research centers all across the United States and beyond, including several independent analyses of surface temperature data. Even without including analyses from the UK research center from which the emails were stolen, the body of evidence underlying our understanding of human-caused global warming remains robust.

We urge you to take account of this as you make decisions on climate policy.

Signed:
(* Member of National Academy of Sciences)
(Institutional affiliation for identification purposes only)

David Archer, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of the Geophysical Sciences
University of Chicago
Chicago, IL

William C. Clark, Ph.D.*
Harvey Brooks Professor of International Science, Public Policy, and Human Development
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA

Peter C. Frumhoff, Ph.D.
Director of Science and Policy
Chief Scientist, Climate Campaign
Union of Concerned Scientists
Cambridge, MA

Inez Fung, Ph.D.*
Professor of Atmospheric Science
Co-Director, Berkeley Institute of the Environment
University of California
Berkeley Berkeley, CA

Neal Lane, Ph.D.
Professor, Rice University
Former Director, National Science Foundation
Former Director, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
Houston, TX

Michael MacCracken, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs
The Climate Institute
Washington, DC

Pamela Matson, Ph.D.*
Professor, School of Earth Sciences
Stanford University
Stanford, CA

James J. McCarthy, Ph.D.
Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA

Jerry Melillo, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist and Director Emeritus
The Ecosystems Center
Marine Biological Laboratory
Woods Hole, MA

Edward L. Miles, Ph.D.*
Bloedel Professor of Marine Studies and Public Affairs
School of Marine Affairs
Co-Director, Center for Science in the Earth System, JISAO
University of Washington
Seattle, WA

Mario J. Molina, Ph.D.*
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California, San Diego
Nobel Laureate, Chemistry San Diego, CA

Ellen Mosley-Thompson, Ph.D.*
Director, Byrd Polar Research Center
Professor of Geography and University Distinguished Scholar
The Ohio State University
Columbus, OH

Gerald R. North, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Sciences and Oceanography
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX

Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D.
Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs
Department of Geosciences and
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ

Jonathan T. Overpeck, Ph.D.
Co-Director, Institute of the Environment
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ

Ronald G. Prinn, Ph.D.
TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Science
Director, Center for Global Change Science
Co-Director, Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA

Alan Robock, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor
Rutgers University
President, Atmospheric Sciences Section, American Geophysical Union
Chair-Elect, Atmospheric and Hydrospheric Sciences Section, American Association for the Advancement of Science
New Brunswick, NJ

Benjamin D. Santer, Ph.D.
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, CA

William H. Schlesinger, Ph.D.*
President, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Millbrook, NY

Daniel P. Schrag, Ph.D.
Sturgis Hooper Professor of Geology
Professor of Environmental Science and Engineering
Director, Harvard University Center for the Environment
Cambridge, MA

Drew Shindell, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
New York, NY

Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor Emeritus and Research Professor
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, CA

Warren M. Washington, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Boulder, CO

Donald J. Wuebbles, Ph.D.
The Harry E. Preble Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Urbana, IL

Carl Wunsch, Ph.D.*
Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physical Oceanography
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA

I still have those emails here on my PC.. They tell us all what they think of the scientific process and integrity and honesty in research....

Here's a dandy quote from one here...

"From: Joseph Alcamo <[email protected]>
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:33 0100
Reply-to: [email protected]

Mike, Rob,

Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.

I would like to weigh in on two important questions --

Distribution for Endorsements --
I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as
possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is
numbers. The media is going to say "1000 scientists signed" or "1500
signed". No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
different story.

Conclusion -- Forget the screening, forget asking
them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those
names!"


Yeah really nothing at all to be concerned about....

 

[editec]

I believe Global WEIRDING is happening.

I see evidence of the changing climate in my own short lifetime.

Add to that the fact that the vast majority of science seems to support the theory.

Whether this event is anthropogenic or not is, AFAIC, still debatable.

Whether we can change the way our societies work in a way that will mitigate this event is likewise debatable.

I'm of the opinion that nothing we can do will, in the short run, make a whole lot of difference.

As to the longer run?

Well that depends on whether this event is the result of mankind's activities, doesn't it?

I think about the only wise thing to do is plan for continuing change.

We cannot quickly or easily back out of the economic/tecnological society we currently have, can we?

We are ALL dependent on that system which, it turns out, might be causing Global Weirding.

If that is the case then I expect that mankind is NOT going to find the political will to radically change the way we live UNTIL Global Weirding is effecting SO MANY OF US, that our political will changes.

Could be a very interesting century, folks.

Those of you in your twenties or thirties?

Good luck!

 

[gslack]

I believe Global WEIRDING is happening.

I see evidence of the changing climate in my own short lifetime.

Add to that the fact that the vast majority of science seems to support the theory.

Whether this event is anthropogenic or not is, AFAIC, still debatable.

Whether we can change the way our societies work in a way that will mitigate this event is likewise debatable.

I'm of the opinion that nothing we can do will, in the short run, make a whole lot of difference.

As to the longer run?

Well that depends on whether this event is the result of mankind's activities, doesn't it?

I think about the only wise thing to do is plan for continuing change.

We cannot quickly or easily back out of the economic/tecnological society we currently have, can we?

We are ALL dependent on that system which, it turns out, might be causing Global Weirding.

If that is the case then I expect that mankind is NOT going to find the political will to radically change the way we live UNTIL Global Weirding is effecting SO MANY OF US, that our political will changes.

Could be a very interesting century, folks.

Those of you in your twenties or thirties?

Good luck!

Global weirding ? Knew I heard that before...

global weirding - Wiktionary

global weirding

English

Etymology
A pun on the term "global warming", Thomas Friedman of The New York Times is sometimes credited with coining the term "global weirding". Although he frequently promotes use of the term, he does not claim authorship explaining:

I prefer the term 'global weirding,' coined by Hunter Lovins, co-founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, because the rise in average global temperature is going to lead to all sorts of crazy things — from hotter heat spells and droughts in some places, to colder cold spells and more violent storms, more intense flooding, forest fires and species loss in other places.[1]
Noun
global weirding (uncountable)
An alternative to global warming to reflect the belief that climate change causes or will cause various weather-related extremes, including both hot and cold weather, to become more intense.
References
Global Weirding: Frost Damage Casts Long Shadow (treehugger, March 3, 2008)
Local gardeners do their part to record possible 'global weirding' (Chicago Tribune, Tuesday, August 8, 2008)
The language of global weirding (The Seattle Times, August 7, 2008)
NYT's Tom Friedman is Wrong on Global 'Weirding' (Huffington Post, December 4, 2007)

And sure enough I have... Why its references are a required reading list for any self respecting Barking Moonbat....
We got HUFFPO, Treehugger (thats a real publication?), The Seattle Times, The Rocky Mountain Institute and Hunter Lovins the moonbats moonbat...

AH yes Hunter Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute... Former Wife of Amory Lovins another barking moonbat of the crazy as a loon variety..

Hunter is known for being a general Ecomentalist who likes to put words like "capitalist" and "capitalism" after the word "Eco" and sell her own brand of commune living self sustainable socialism. ANd her Ex-Hubby is best known for the "Soft Energy" Path which as hard as he has tried cannot really explain it other than to say its different from hard energy and then ramble in circles saying nothing. And his work on the "Hypercar" a complete joke that since 1994 has not produced a single car that meets its fantasy. In fact its is no longer known as the hypercar project, but Fiberforge and focuses on their NEW goal of lowering the cost of high-volume advanced-composite structures.. SO they just moved the goal posts....

Editec, you just outed yourself as a Barking Moonbat..

 

[Trakar]

CRU update 2
CRU update 2 - University of East Anglia (UEA)

AAAS Reaffirms Statements on Climate Change and Integrity
AAAS - AAAS News Release - "AAAS Reaffirms Statements on Climate Change and Integrity"

Impact of CRU Hacking on the AMS Statement on Climate Change
Impact of CRU Hacking on the AMS Statement on Climate Change

G8+5 Academies’ joint statement: Climate change and the transformation of energy
technologies for a low carbon future
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years
Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

An Open Letter to Congress from U.S. Scientists on Climate Change and Recently Stolen Emails

As U.S. scientists with substantial expertise on climate change and its impacts on natural ecosystems, our built environment and human well-being, we want to assure policy makers and the public of the integrity of the underlying scientific research and the need for urgent action to reduce heat-trapping emissions. In the last few weeks, opponents of taking action on climate change have misrepresented both the content and the significance of stolen emails to obscure public understanding of climate science and the scientific process.

We would like to set the record straight.

The body of evidence that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming is overwhelming. The content of the stolen emails has no impact whatsoever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming. The scientific process depends on open access to methodology, data, and a rigorous peer-review process. The robust exchange of ideas in the peer-reviewed literature regarding climate science is evidence of the high degree of integrity in this process.

As the recent letter to Congress from 18 leading U.S. scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society, states:

“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. ... If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced.”

These “multiple independent lines of evidence” are drawn from numerous public and private research centers all across the United States and beyond, including several independent analyses of surface temperature data. Even without including analyses from the UK research center from which the emails were stolen, the body of evidence underlying our understanding of human-caused global warming remains robust.

We urge you to take account of this as you make decisions on climate policy.

Signed:
(* Member of National Academy of Sciences)
(Institutional affiliation for identification purposes only)

David Archer, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of the Geophysical Sciences
University of Chicago
Chicago, IL

William C. Clark, Ph.D.*
Harvey Brooks Professor of International Science, Public Policy, and Human Development
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA

Peter C. Frumhoff, Ph.D.
Director of Science and Policy
Chief Scientist, Climate Campaign
Union of Concerned Scientists
Cambridge, MA

Inez Fung, Ph.D.*
Professor of Atmospheric Science
Co-Director, Berkeley Institute of the Environment
University of California
Berkeley Berkeley, CA

Neal Lane, Ph.D.
Professor, Rice University
Former Director, National Science Foundation
Former Director, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
Houston, TX

Michael MacCracken, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs
The Climate Institute
Washington, DC

Pamela Matson, Ph.D.*
Professor, School of Earth Sciences
Stanford University
Stanford, CA

James J. McCarthy, Ph.D.
Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA

Jerry Melillo, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist and Director Emeritus
The Ecosystems Center
Marine Biological Laboratory
Woods Hole, MA

Edward L. Miles, Ph.D.*
Bloedel Professor of Marine Studies and Public Affairs
School of Marine Affairs
Co-Director, Center for Science in the Earth System, JISAO
University of Washington
Seattle, WA

Mario J. Molina, Ph.D.*
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California, San Diego
Nobel Laureate, Chemistry San Diego, CA

Ellen Mosley-Thompson, Ph.D.*
Director, Byrd Polar Research Center
Professor of Geography and University Distinguished Scholar
The Ohio State University
Columbus, OH

Gerald R. North, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Sciences and Oceanography
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX

Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D.
Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs
Department of Geosciences and
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ

Jonathan T. Overpeck, Ph.D.
Co-Director, Institute of the Environment
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ

Ronald G. Prinn, Ph.D.
TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Science
Director, Center for Global Change Science
Co-Director, Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA

Alan Robock, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor
Rutgers University
President, Atmospheric Sciences Section, American Geophysical Union
Chair-Elect, Atmospheric and Hydrospheric Sciences Section, American Association for the Advancement of Science
New Brunswick, NJ

Benjamin D. Santer, Ph.D.
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, CA

William H. Schlesinger, Ph.D.*
President, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Millbrook, NY

Daniel P. Schrag, Ph.D.
Sturgis Hooper Professor of Geology
Professor of Environmental Science and Engineering
Director, Harvard University Center for the Environment
Cambridge, MA

Drew Shindell, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
New York, NY

Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor Emeritus and Research Professor
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, CA

Warren M. Washington, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Boulder, CO

Donald J. Wuebbles, Ph.D.
The Harry E. Preble Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Urbana, IL

Carl Wunsch, Ph.D.*
Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physical Oceanography
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA

Ahhhh yes the ever popular appeal to authority...

"Appeal to Authority" - WIKI

The appeal to authority may take several forms. As a statistical syllogism, it will have the following basic structure:[1]

Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is correct.
a says p about S.
Therefore, p is correct.
The strength of this argument depends upon two factors:[1][2]

The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion.
We may also simply incorporate these conditions into the structure of the argument itself, in which case the form may look like this:[2]

X holds that A is true
X is a legitimate expert on the subject.
The consensus of experts agrees with X.
Therefore, there's a presumption that A is true.

[[-Trakar- the above is a legitimate, powerful use of inductive logic to support an argument through the use of legitimate sources of expert knowledge and understanding.]]

[edit] Fallacious appeals to authority
Fallacious arguments from authority are often the result of failing to meet either of the two conditions from the previous section.[1][2] Specifically, when the inference fails to meet the first condition, this is sometimes called an "appeal to inappropriate authority".[3] This occurs when an inference relies on individuals or groups without relevant expertise or knowledge[3] (e.g. a doctor of medicine opining about the state of the economy, while he is not trained as an economist many people will still give his opinions on the subject more credence than those of a lesser educated person).

Because the argument is inductive (i.e. because the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises), it is also fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.[2] In this event, the argument is a non sequitur.

My presentation of references simply listed the fact that every serious and in-depth investigation of the CRU email hacking crime has come to largely the same conclusions and none of the issues and assertions raised by some in regards to those emails, has been compellingly demonstrated or had any substantive impact on the science as can be read from the statements from all the leading scientific organizations on the planet, subsequent to those investigations.

 

[yidnar]

Scattered across the world's largest island, as big as Alaska and California combined and 80 percent covered by ice, small bands of specialists tended to GPS sites and automatic weather stations, drilled down into the island's frozen cap, and analyzed the air and clouds overhead, working long hours under the midnight sun. All this is to help begin answering a crucial question: How much of Greenland's ice will melt, and how quickly, in a world growing warmer and warming fastest in the Arctic?

If all the ice eventually slipped into the ocean, it would be enough to raise global sea levels by 23 feet. Even a fraction of that would inundate Bangladesh and south Florida, drown small islands and threaten cities as widely dispersed as Shanghai and New York. But as temperatures rise from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the answer isn't coming easily. The challenge -- scientific, logistical -- appears greater than the resources devoted to it.

On Endless Ice, Searching for Clues to Our Future

what caused the ocians to rise in the past after the ice melted!!that huge nuclear chain reaction in the sky ...IDIOT!!!

 

[westwall]

CRU update 2
CRU update 2 - University of East Anglia (UEA)

AAAS Reaffirms Statements on Climate Change and Integrity
AAAS - AAAS News Release - "AAAS Reaffirms Statements on Climate Change and Integrity"

Impact of CRU Hacking on the AMS Statement on Climate Change
Impact of CRU Hacking on the AMS Statement on Climate Change

G8+5 Academies&#8217; joint statement: Climate change and the transformation of energy
technologies for a low carbon future
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years
Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

An Open Letter to Congress from U.S. Scientists on Climate Change and Recently Stolen Emails

As U.S. scientists with substantial expertise on climate change and its impacts on natural ecosystems, our built environment and human well-being, we want to assure policy makers and the public of the integrity of the underlying scientific research and the need for urgent action to reduce heat-trapping emissions. In the last few weeks, opponents of taking action on climate change have misrepresented both the content and the significance of stolen emails to obscure public understanding of climate science and the scientific process.

We would like to set the record straight.

The body of evidence that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming is overwhelming. The content of the stolen emails has no impact whatsoever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming. The scientific process depends on open access to methodology, data, and a rigorous peer-review process. The robust exchange of ideas in the peer-reviewed literature regarding climate science is evidence of the high degree of integrity in this process.

As the recent letter to Congress from 18 leading U.S. scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society, states:

&#8220;Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. ... If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced.&#8221;

These &#8220;multiple independent lines of evidence&#8221; are drawn from numerous public and private research centers all across the United States and beyond, including several independent analyses of surface temperature data. Even without including analyses from the UK research center from which the emails were stolen, the body of evidence underlying our understanding of human-caused global warming remains robust.

We urge you to take account of this as you make decisions on climate policy.

Signed:
(* Member of National Academy of Sciences)
(Institutional affiliation for identification purposes only)

David Archer, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of the Geophysical Sciences
University of Chicago
Chicago, IL

William C. Clark, Ph.D.*
Harvey Brooks Professor of International Science, Public Policy, and Human Development
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA

Peter C. Frumhoff, Ph.D.
Director of Science and Policy
Chief Scientist, Climate Campaign
Union of Concerned Scientists
Cambridge, MA

Inez Fung, Ph.D.*
Professor of Atmospheric Science
Co-Director, Berkeley Institute of the Environment
University of California
Berkeley Berkeley, CA

Neal Lane, Ph.D.
Professor, Rice University
Former Director, National Science Foundation
Former Director, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
Houston, TX

Michael MacCracken, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs
The Climate Institute
Washington, DC

Pamela Matson, Ph.D.*
Professor, School of Earth Sciences
Stanford University
Stanford, CA

James J. McCarthy, Ph.D.
Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA

Jerry Melillo, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist and Director Emeritus
The Ecosystems Center
Marine Biological Laboratory
Woods Hole, MA

Edward L. Miles, Ph.D.*
Bloedel Professor of Marine Studies and Public Affairs
School of Marine Affairs
Co-Director, Center for Science in the Earth System, JISAO
University of Washington
Seattle, WA

Mario J. Molina, Ph.D.*
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California, San Diego
Nobel Laureate, Chemistry San Diego, CA

Ellen Mosley-Thompson, Ph.D.*
Director, Byrd Polar Research Center
Professor of Geography and University Distinguished Scholar
The Ohio State University
Columbus, OH

Gerald R. North, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Sciences and Oceanography
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX

Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D.
Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs
Department of Geosciences and
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ

Jonathan T. Overpeck, Ph.D.
Co-Director, Institute of the Environment
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ

Ronald G. Prinn, Ph.D.
TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Science
Director, Center for Global Change Science
Co-Director, Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA

Alan Robock, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor
Rutgers University
President, Atmospheric Sciences Section, American Geophysical Union
Chair-Elect, Atmospheric and Hydrospheric Sciences Section, American Association for the Advancement of Science
New Brunswick, NJ

Benjamin D. Santer, Ph.D.
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, CA

William H. Schlesinger, Ph.D.*
President, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Millbrook, NY

Daniel P. Schrag, Ph.D.
Sturgis Hooper Professor of Geology
Professor of Environmental Science and Engineering
Director, Harvard University Center for the Environment
Cambridge, MA

Drew Shindell, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
New York, NY

Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor Emeritus and Research Professor
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, CA

Warren M. Washington, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Boulder, CO

Donald J. Wuebbles, Ph.D.
The Harry E. Preble Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Urbana, IL

Carl Wunsch, Ph.D.*
Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physical Oceanography
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA

Ahhhh yes the ever popular appeal to authority...

"Appeal to Authority" - WIKI

The appeal to authority may take several forms. As a statistical syllogism, it will have the following basic structure:[1]

Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is correct.
a says p about S.
Therefore, p is correct.
The strength of this argument depends upon two factors:[1][2]

The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion.
We may also simply incorporate these conditions into the structure of the argument itself, in which case the form may look like this:[2]

X holds that A is true
X is a legitimate expert on the subject.
The consensus of experts agrees with X.
Therefore, there's a presumption that A is true.

[[-Trakar- the above is a legitimate, powerful use of inductive logic to support an argument through the use of legitimate sources of expert knowledge and understanding.]]

[edit] Fallacious appeals to authority
Fallacious arguments from authority are often the result of failing to meet either of the two conditions from the previous section.[1][2] Specifically, when the inference fails to meet the first condition, this is sometimes called an "appeal to inappropriate authority".[3] This occurs when an inference relies on individuals or groups without relevant expertise or knowledge[3] (e.g. a doctor of medicine opining about the state of the economy, while he is not trained as an economist many people will still give his opinions on the subject more credence than those of a lesser educated person).

Because the argument is inductive (i.e. because the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises), it is also fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.[2] In this event, the argument is a non sequitur.

My presentation of references simply listed the fact that every serious and in-depth investigation of the CRU email hacking crime has come to largely the same conclusions and none of the issues and assertions raised by some in regards to those emails, has been compellingly demonstrated or had any substantive impact on the science as can be read from the statements from all the leading scientific organizations on the planet, subsequent to those investigations.

You keep referring to the "hacking" as if that were in fact the case. It is however not so. The emails were LEAKED. Get your facts straight. If you want to be taken seriously you need to at least get the basic facts straight. Here is the beginning.......

10.
FOIA said
November 17, 2009 at 9:57 pm
We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.

We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents.
Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.

This is a limited time offer, download now: http://ftp.tomcity.ru/incoming/free/FOI2009.zip

Sample:

0926010576.txt * Mann: working towards a common goal
1189722851.txt * Jones: &#8220;try and change the Received date!&#8221;
0924532891.txt * Mann vs. CRU
0847838200.txt * Briffa & Yamal 1996: &#8220;too much growth in recent years makes it difficult to derive a valid age/growth curve&#8221;
0926026654.txt * Jones: MBH dodgy ground
1225026120.txt * CRU&#8217;s truncated temperature curve
1059664704.txt * Mann: dirty laundry
1062189235.txt * Osborn: concerns with MBH uncertainty
0926947295.txt * IPCC scenarios not supposed to be realistic
0938018124.txt * Mann: &#8220;something else&#8221; causing discrepancies
0939154709.txt * Osborn: we usually stop the series in 1960
0933255789.txt * WWF report: beef up if possible
0998926751.txt * &#8220;Carefully constructed&#8221; model scenarios to get &#8220;distinguishable results&#8221;
0968705882.txt * CLA: &#8220;IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science but production of results&#8221;
1075403821.txt * Jones: Daly death &#8220;cheering news&#8221;
1029966978.txt * Briffa &#8211; last decades exceptional, or not?
1092167224.txt * Mann: &#8220;not necessarily wrong, but it makes a small difference&#8221; (factor 1.29)
1188557698.txt * Wigley: &#8220;Keenan has a valid point&#8221;
1118949061.txt * we&#8217;d like to do some experiments with different proxy combinations
1120593115.txt * I am reviewing a couple of papers on extremes, so that I can refer to them in the chapter for AR4

 

[gslack]

TRAKAR this is to you, I do not want to post your mile long appeal to authority again we have seen it enough...

You and your sources are full of it, I cited their own words not what somebody else told me they said or didn't say. They are guilty as sin of in the very least fraud, and I would say worse. IN their own words they tell on themselves...

Why don't any of the so-called experts who deemed the emails nothing ever actually cite and show them in their entirety? I can tell you, cause they KNOW BETTER!

 

[Tank]

I'd like to see what's under all that ice anyways....

 

[Old Rocks]

rocks

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Scattered across the world's largest island, as big as Alaska and California combined and 80 percent covered by ice, small bands of specialists tended to GPS sites and automatic weather stations, drilled down into the island's frozen cap, and analyzed the air and clouds overhead, working long hours under the midnight sun. All this is to help begin answering a crucial question: How much of Greenland's ice will melt, and how quickly, in a world growing warmer and warming fastest in the Arctic?

If all the ice eventually slipped into the ocean, it would be enough to raise global sea levels by 23 feet. Even a fraction of that would inundate Bangladesh and south Florida, drown small islands and threaten cities as widely dispersed as Shanghai and New York. But as temperatures rise from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the answer isn't coming easily. The challenge -- scientific, logistical -- appears greater than the resources devoted to it.

On Endless Ice, Searching for Clues to Our Future

Damn those melting ice caps and glaciers. If we don't do something now Holland will be below sea level.

 

[peach174]

Did they find out why we are having such cold and longer winters?

 

[Old Rocks]

Did they find out why we are having such cold and longer winters?

We are not having longer and colder winters.


http://apps.carleton.edu/curricular/ents/assets/epaul.doc

Average winter temperatures are increasing more than twice as fast as average annual temperatures as winter temperatures are rising at 2.3 degrees Fahrenheit. The change in winter temperature has led to shorter winters. The snow season in the Great Lakes region has decreased by roughly 6 days over the last 50 years. In many areas, springs arrives much earlier. The climate change has also been observed in the amount of rainfall. Precipitation has increased by 15 to 20 percent in parts of Minnesota, especially the southern part. A study of flood variability in the Upper Mississippi River Basin revealed a significant increase in flood flows overtime (MPCA 2003). If the trend of changing precipitation and temperature continues many scientists predict that Minnesota will begin to look much more like Nebraska or Missouri with much drier conditions and less forest cover. Animals and insects have appeared in the past decades that have never been seen in Minnesota before. True katydids and opossums have now been spotted in Minnesota as far north as the twin cities. The climate of Southern Minnesota has started to change.

 

[Old Rocks]

And everyone talks about how cold this winter was in Portland, Oregon. Everyone from California or some such place. We had one cold week of sub-freezing temperatures at night. Never got to 0 F once. Compare that to winters we have had in the past where the Columbia froze over, and people drove on the ice from Portland to Vancouver.

 

[whitehall]

Why don't you greenie lefties get a delegation and go to China and have them worry about the Greenland ice while we pull the US out of the financial quagmire?

 

[peach174]

Did they find out why we are having such cold and longer winters?

We are not having longer and colder winters.


http://apps.carleton.edu/curricular/ents/assets/epaul.doc

Average winter temperatures are increasing more than twice as fast as average annual temperatures as winter temperatures are rising at 2.3 degrees Fahrenheit. The change in winter temperature has led to shorter winters. The snow season in the Great Lakes region has decreased by roughly 6 days over the last 50 years. In many areas, springs arrives much earlier. The climate change has also been observed in the amount of rainfall. Precipitation has increased by 15 to 20 percent in parts of Minnesota, especially the southern part. A study of flood variability in the Upper Mississippi River Basin revealed a significant increase in flood flows overtime (MPCA 2003). If the trend of changing precipitation and temperature continues many scientists predict that Minnesota will begin to look much more like Nebraska or Missouri with much drier conditions and less forest cover. Animals and insects have appeared in the past decades that have never been seen in Minnesota before. True katydids and opossums have now been spotted in Minnesota as far north as the twin cities. The climate of Southern Minnesota has started to change.

It certainly was here in southern AZ.
Our June was cold all month long and we had to use our heater.
We never have had to use our heat in May let alone June.
It was also cold in June for Colo.
It did not get warm till the end of June.
So their study is wrong.
We had a very long winter.