On Endless Ice, Searching for Clues to Our Future

Discussion in 'Environment' started by rdean, Aug 19, 2011.

  1. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,031
    Thanks Received:
    6,880
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +14,893
    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
     
  2. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,938
    Thanks Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,678
    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

    :lol:
     
  3. Trakar
    Offline

    Trakar VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,699
    Thanks Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +73
    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
     
  4. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,948
    Thanks Received:
    7,964
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,685






    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
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2011
  5. percysunshine
    Offline

    percysunshine Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    Messages:
    16,664
    Thanks Received:
    2,260
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Sty
    Ratings:
    +5,835
    "Even a fraction of that would inundate Bangladesh and south Florida..."

    Like...this would be a problem?
     
  6. gslack
    Offline

    gslack Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    4,527
    Thanks Received:
    346
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +346
    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 <alcamo@usf.uni-kassel.de>
    To: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, Rob.Swart@rivm.nl
    Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement
    Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:33 0100
    Reply-to: alcamo@usf.uni-kassel.de

    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....:lol:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    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!
     
  8. gslack
    Offline

    gslack Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    4,527
    Thanks Received:
    346
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +346
    Global weirding ? Knew I heard that before...

    global weirding - Wiktionary
    And sure enough I have... Why its references are a required reading list for any self respecting Barking Moonbat....:lol:
    We got HUFFPO, Treehugger (thats a real publication?), The Seattle Times, The Rocky Mountain Institute and Hunter Lovins the moonbats moonbat...:clap2:

    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....:cuckoo:

    Editec, you just outed yourself as a Barking Moonbat..:clap2:
     
  9. Trakar
    Offline

    Trakar VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,699
    Thanks Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +73
    "Appeal to Authority" - WIKI

    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.
     
  10. yidnar
    Offline

    yidnar Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2011
    Messages:
    7,215
    Thanks Received:
    800
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Inside your head.
    Ratings:
    +931
    what caused the ocians to rise in the past after the ice melted!!that huge nuclear chain reaction in the sky ...IDIOT!!!
     

Share This Page