Scientist battle Arctic winter to measure melting ice cap

[PoliticalChic]

Why is it so hard to believe that we're fucking up the earth? Is it really that unfathomable? I mean, after 200 years, with 6 billion of us around drilling, extracting, processing, consuming, trashing, and burning the planet. Is it just unlimited? Can it really go on forever with absolutely NO repercussions?

Hmmm.

It's not that it is so hard to believe that man is responsible, it's simply that there are so many more important factors to include in the calculation. Consider volcanoes, swamp gas, methane from cows, all of which outweigh human effects. And of course, the single greatest factor, natural sun cycles: consider melting ice on Mars.

The analogy to remember is this: the anthropogenic theory of global warming is comparable to the fear that the numbers of Americans retiring to Florida will cause the continent to flip over.

Let's remember that governments benefit by controlling industry, and scientists stay in business by getting government grants for research.

Yes, let us consider the melting of the southern ice cap on Mars. Scientists claim that it is part of the normal cycle, but the denialists claim it is because of the increasing output of the sun. And in the next sentence, claim that we are in danger of another ice age because of the present spotless sun. Bit of a contradiction here.

Vocanoes cause cooling in the normal course of things. The only type of eruption that causes warming is the Trapp Volcanics, and none of that is going on at present. Think Tambora, Krakatoa, and Pinitubo.

The analogy that you present is ridiculous. AGW is based on the physics of the absorbtion and emission spectra of CO2. Physics well established over one hundred years ago.

Your last sentence is also stupidly ridiculous. So you say that scientists from every nation in the world are all lying on the behest of their respective government for the control of business. Talk about a convoluted conspiracy theory.

If you are choosing to explain melting on earth, and on Mars as two different phenomena, you may be infracting a basic mathematical principle: Occam's Razor.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are the one that is telling virually the whole of the scientific community that you know more than they do. Once again, every scientific society, every National Academy of Science, and every major university on earth states that AGW is correct.

But we are to take the word of right wing nuts over the evidence presented by scientists world wide. Right.......

Calm down, Old...Rock.

Thousands of scientists believe that that anthropogenic global warming is a fraud.

And right wing isn't necessarily linked to "nuts." Just look at the current administration.

Why do you lie?

Thousands of "scientists?"

Bullshit.

Ah, the elegance of your response takes my breath away.

How quickly those on your side leap to terms like "lie." It speaks volumes about the weakness of your argument, and, probably, your intellect.

"Over 31,000 Scientists Disagree With Human Caused Global Warming"
Over 31,000 Scientists Disagree With Human Caused Global Warming: The Hammond Report

Actually, I'll bet it was my reference to the current administration that got your goat.

There must be a palpable fear that all those who know your views on global warming, and the Obama administration will start saying to your face what they say behind your back.

Consider radical plastic surgery and the Federal Witness Relocation Program as your best bet.

 

[Old Rocks]

It's not that it is so hard to believe that man is responsible, it's simply that there are so many more important factors to include in the calculation. Consider volcanoes, swamp gas, methane from cows, all of which outweigh human effects. And of course, the single greatest factor, natural sun cycles: consider melting ice on Mars.

The analogy to remember is this: the anthropogenic theory of global warming is comparable to the fear that the numbers of Americans retiring to Florida will cause the continent to flip over.

Let's remember that governments benefit by controlling industry, and scientists stay in business by getting government grants for research.

Yes, let us consider the melting of the southern ice cap on Mars. Scientists claim that it is part of the normal cycle, but the denialists claim it is because of the increasing output of the sun. And in the next sentence, claim that we are in danger of another ice age because of the present spotless sun. Bit of a contradiction here.

Vocanoes cause cooling in the normal course of things. The only type of eruption that causes warming is the Trapp Volcanics, and none of that is going on at present. Think Tambora, Krakatoa, and Pinitubo.

The analogy that you present is ridiculous. AGW is based on the physics of the absorbtion and emission spectra of CO2. Physics well established over one hundred years ago.

Your last sentence is also stupidly ridiculous. So you say that scientists from every nation in the world are all lying on the behest of their respective government for the control of business. Talk about a convoluted conspiracy theory.

If you are choosing to explain melting on earth, and on Mars as two different phenomena, you may be infracting a basic mathematical principle: Occam's Razor.

Bullshit. They are two differant planets, with differant seasons and lenghths of seasons. Once again, have you noticed that Factfinder is claiming that we are cooling because of the present solar minimum, and you are claiming that Mars is warming because the sun is hotter. You two can fight this out.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yep, such famous scientists as the Spice Girls;
Kevin Grandia | Infamous Oregon Global Warming Petition Alive and Well

Yesterday we came across this post on DailyKos about a University professor who recently received a package from a PO Box in La Jolla, CA, asking him to sign a petition denying global warming and condemning the Kyoto Protocol.

The package included an official looking research study titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," by Dr. Fred Seitz (a gentleman we know all too well here at DeSmogBlog).

It seems that either this Professor has not picked up his mail in a long while, or the infamous "Oregon Petition" effort has resurfaced.

Below is a quick background and some helpful links to the history of the Oregon Petition. If you've also received one of these packages, please let me know it would be great to get a hold of one.

Background on the Oregon Petition

The Oregon Petition has been used by climate change deniers as proof that there is no scientific consensus, however they fail to note the controversy surrounding the petition itself.

The Oregon Petition was initiated by an individual named Art Robinson in April 1998 under the auspices of Robinson's so-called "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine." [picture above] Along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, Robinson and his Institute published the infamous “Oregon Petition” claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.

The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science . They weren’t, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented.

Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz a notorious climate change denier (and former tobacco company scientist), who over 30 years ago was the president of the National Academy of Science. Also attached to the petition was an apparent “research paper” titled: "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide." The paper was made to mimic what a research paper would look like in the National Academy’s prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal.

The authors of the paper were Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both oil-backed scientists) and Robinson’s son Zachary. With the signature of a former NAS president and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression.

The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating that: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."

Oregon petition and big tobacco
It’s interesting to note that Fred Sietz, the author of the cover letter is also the former medical advisor to RJ Reynolds medical research program. A 1989 Philip Morris memo stated that Seitz was: “quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice.” However, 9 years later, it seems that he was “sufficiently rational” to lead the charge on Robinson’s Oregon Petition. It also seems that Seitz is still “sufficiently rational” to sit as the Chair of notorious climate change denier, Fred Singer’s, Science and Environmental Policy Project.

Oregon Petition and the Spice Girls
According to the May, '98 Associated Press article , the Oregon petition included names that were intentionally placed to prove the invalid methodology with which the names of scientists were collected. The petition included the names of "Drs. 'Frank Burns' 'Honeycutt' and 'Pierce' from the hit-show M*A*S*H and Spice Girls, a.k.a. Geraldine Halliwell, who was on the petition as 'Dr. Geri Halliwel' and again as simply 'Dr. Halliwell.' " Of the fake names, Robinson is quoted as saying: "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake."

This is from OISM, a fruitcake outfit operating out of a farmhouse near the southwestern oregon metropolis of Cave Junction.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yep, such famous scientists as the Spice Girls;
Kevin Grandia | Infamous Oregon Global Warming Petition Alive and Well

Yesterday we came across this post on DailyKos about a University professor who recently received a package from a PO Box in La Jolla, CA, asking him to sign a petition denying global warming and condemning the Kyoto Protocol.

The package included an official looking research study titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," by Dr. Fred Seitz (a gentleman we know all too well here at DeSmogBlog).

It seems that either this Professor has not picked up his mail in a long while, or the infamous "Oregon Petition" effort has resurfaced.

Below is a quick background and some helpful links to the history of the Oregon Petition. If you've also received one of these packages, please let me know it would be great to get a hold of one.

Background on the Oregon Petition

The Oregon Petition has been used by climate change deniers as proof that there is no scientific consensus, however they fail to note the controversy surrounding the petition itself.

The Oregon Petition was initiated by an individual named Art Robinson in April 1998 under the auspices of Robinson's so-called "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine." [picture above] Along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, Robinson and his Institute published the infamous “Oregon Petition” claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.

The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science . They weren’t, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented.

Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz a notorious climate change denier (and former tobacco company scientist), who over 30 years ago was the president of the National Academy of Science. Also attached to the petition was an apparent “research paper” titled: "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide." The paper was made to mimic what a research paper would look like in the National Academy’s prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal.

The authors of the paper were Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both oil-backed scientists) and Robinson’s son Zachary. With the signature of a former NAS president and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression.

The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating that: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."

Oregon petition and big tobacco
It’s interesting to note that Fred Sietz, the author of the cover letter is also the former medical advisor to RJ Reynolds medical research program. A 1989 Philip Morris memo stated that Seitz was: “quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice.” However, 9 years later, it seems that he was “sufficiently rational” to lead the charge on Robinson’s Oregon Petition. It also seems that Seitz is still “sufficiently rational” to sit as the Chair of notorious climate change denier, Fred Singer’s, Science and Environmental Policy Project.

Oregon Petition and the Spice Girls
According to the May, '98 Associated Press article , the Oregon petition included names that were intentionally placed to prove the invalid methodology with which the names of scientists were collected. The petition included the names of "Drs. 'Frank Burns' 'Honeycutt' and 'Pierce' from the hit-show M*A*S*H and Spice Girls, a.k.a. Geraldine Halliwell, who was on the petition as 'Dr. Geri Halliwel' and again as simply 'Dr. Halliwell.' " Of the fake names, Robinson is quoted as saying: "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake."

This is from OISM, a fruitcake outfit operating out of a farmhouse near the southwestern oregon metropolis of Cave Junction.

Well, well Rocks, calm down: I won't take you for granite.

Although I've never been in your position, I can empathize to the extent that it must be 'earth-shaking,' so to speak, that a theory to which you are so intimately wedded, is finding fewer and fewer goofs, er, adherents.

Global Warming as Mass Neurosis - WSJ.com

Finally, there is a psychological explanation. Listen carefully to the global warming alarmists, and the main theme that emerges is that what the developed world needs is a large dose of penance. What's remarkable is the extent to which penance sells among a mostly secular audience. What is there to be penitent about?

As it turns out, a lot, at least if you're inclined to believe that our successes are undeserved and that prosperity is morally suspect. In this view, global warming is nature's great comeuppance, affirming as nothing else our guilty conscience for our worldly success.

In "The Varieties of Religious Experience," William James distinguishes between healthy, life-affirming religion and the monastically inclined, "morbid-minded" religion of the sick-souled. Global warming is sick-souled religion.

May The Force Be With You...or whatever such greeting you cultists use.

 

[Sinatra]

Sinatra;

The lead author of the Nature article you cite, was Eric Stieg - a professor of minimal note at the University of Washington.

........................................................................

Minimal note? Sinatra, this is Eric Stieg. And his position and professional bona fides are not at all minimal. More than likely far better than yours in whatever your field of endevour is.

Research Groups:
Analytical Geochemistry, Glaciology , Climate and Paleoclimate


Other UW Academic Affiliations:
Quaternary Research Center, Program on Climate Change

Background & Current Research:
Professor Eric Steig completed his PhD in Geological Sciences at UW in 1995, was research assistant professor at the University of Colorado from 1996-1998 and Assistant Professor at at the University of Pennsylvania before returning to UW in 2001. Along with Roger Buick in ESS, Becky Alexander in Atmospheric Sciences, and Peter Ward in Biology/ESS, he directs the ISOLAB, a state-of-the art isotope geochemistry facility involving research ranging from climate and atmospheric chemistry to geobiology.

Steig teaches environmental earth science, isotope geochemistry and paleoclimatology at both the graduate and undergraduate levels. With his graduate students, postdocs, and lab staff, he uses various methods to develop time series of past environmental changes as a context for understanding contemporary and possible future change. Current focus areas include temperature and snow accumulation variability in Antarctica, through ice core measurements, satellite remote-sensing; development and application of methods to measure the nitrogen and oxygen isotope concentrations in atmospheric "odd-N" species (HNO3, NO2, NO); and acquisition of ice cores from alpine regions. Research support is from the National Science Foundation's Polar and Atmospheric Sciences Programs, and from the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS).

He has been a contributor to science planning for glaciological and solid-earth geosciences in the polar regions, to international efforts to track pollution in the Arctic, and to archive and sample allocation at the National Ice Core Laboratory. He is a current member of the NSF-funded Ice Core Working Group and the steering committee for the International Partnerships in Ice Coring Sciences (IPICS) initiative. Steig served as Associate Editor (2001-2004) and Senior Editor (2005-2008) of the journal Quaternary Research, and continues as Special Editor for occasional solicted papers of interest. Steig is active in public education, and has given lectures to organizations such as the Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve on the Washington State coast, and the Nature Conservancy. He is a founding member and contributor to the influential climate science web site, "RealClimate.org"

More information on Steig's research is available at the lab web pages and the research group web pages listed above. Check the "Dissertations" page to find out about our former students, and what they are doing now at NCAR, NASA, and unversities around the world.

Selected Recent Publications:
Complete publication list available upon request.

Steig EJ, Schneider DP, Rutherford SD, Mann ME, Comiso JC, Shindell DT. Warming of the Antarctic ice sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year. Nature 457 459-462 (January 22, 2009).

Kunasek SA, Alexander B, Steig EJ, Hastings MG, Gleason DJ, Jarvis JC. Measurements and modeling of Δ17O of nitrate in a snowpit from Summit, Greenland. Journal of Geophysical Research 113: D24302, doi:10.1029/2008JD010103 (2008).

Jarvis JC, Steig EJ, Hastings MG, Kunasek SA. The influence of local photochemistry on isotopes of nitrate in Greenland snow. Geophysical Research Letters 35: L21804, doi:10.1029/2008GL035551 (2008).

Schneider EJ, Steig, DP. Ice cores record significant 1940s Antarctic warmth related to tropical climate variability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105: 12154-12158 (2008).

Steig EJ, Wolfe AP. Sprucing up Greenland. Science, 320: 1595-1596 (2008).

Koenig LS, Steig EJ, Winebrenner DP, Shuman CA, A link between microwave extinction length, firn thermal diffusivity and accumulation rate in West Antarctica, Journal of Geophysical Research 2007.

Schneider DP, Steig EJ, van Ommen TD, Dixon DA, Mayewski PA, Jones JM, Bitz CM. Antarctic temperatures over the past two centuries from ice cores. Geophysical Research Letters 33, L16707, doi:10.1029/2006GL02705 (2006).

Steig EJ, Mayewski PA, Dixon DA, Frey MM, Kaspari SD, Schneider DP, Arcone SA, Hamilton GS, Spikes VB, Albert M, Meese D, Gow AJ, Shuman CA, White JWC, Sneed S, Flaherty J, Wumkes M. High-resolution ice cores from US ITASE (West Antarctica); development and validation of chronologies and estimatation of precision and accuracy. Annals of Glaciology 41: 77-84 (2005).

Roe GH & Steig EJ. Characterization of millennial-scale climate variability. Journal of Climate 17: 1929-1944 (2004).

UW-ESS All Faculty Directory

_______________

Trust me - Steig is of little note - his kind is legion. He had one shot at elevating his status in the academic community, and he was roundly discounted for it as his data was proven false - the question is whether this was done with intention, or he simply was in error. There is in fact increasing pressure from within his own department to further explain the faults in his data - which to this point, Steig has partially resisted - there was an update, but not yet a "full disclosure" one. I feel a bit sorry for him actually, as he is caught in a bit of a bind on this, and understandably worried over the long term impacts to his career. I would not be a bit surprised to see him leave the UW within a couple years and end up somewhere else where he hopes to get a fresh start.

Being part of any number of organizations pads ones resume, but is not given much consideration by actual academics, as we know how easy it is to join such groups. As of last counting, I am currently an active member of no less than eight such organizations - all of which do little more than self-promote within their own respective interests, and adds to the departement cred score when the annual budget requests come around. When I was still actively instructing, I was a member of 12 such organizations - it actually gets rather silly, but to those outside academia, it looks darn impressive, eh? Normally all it takes is proof of status, and the membership fee. I have a friend who instructed for just over 20 years, then took a position at one of these organizations and now works far less but for more pay. He has not stepped into a lecture hall for nearly 3 years, no longer needs to concern himself over publishing, and makes about 20k more than he did his last year as a full time professor. I gave serious consideration to doing the same, but had my own private business up and running by then with even greater income generating potential.

But I digress...

Steig is of little note now beyond having screwed up his data.

The Antarctic as a whole is cooling down - one region has experienced warming, but the entire continent is getting colder. His job was to travel to the region to try and dissprove the data showing cooling - he attempted to do that via purpose or folly, and in the end, was smacked down hard when the data was properly reviewed.

If you take the regional variations, that brings us back to Leroux - who you would do well to better aquaint yourself with - now there is a figure in the climate science community who was highly regarded - even by those who did not agree with his conclusions.

Study LEROUX.

Do it now, before you waste yet more time battling windmills...

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Why is it so hard to believe that we're fucking up the earth? Is it really that unfathomable? I mean, after 200 years, with 6 billion of us around drilling, extracting, processing, consuming, trashing, and burning the planet. Is it just unlimited? Can it really go on forever with absolutely NO repercussions?

Hmmm.

How about the earth fucking itself up? Can you deny the abuse to the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions? How about forest fires that burn for weeks and are only stopped by the help of man?

I'm curious, if you found out that these "great" unflappable scientific discoveries were being done by "scientist" employed by a subsidiary of Halliburton, what would you think then. These people are in the business of "science", they get paid to do what they do, they can be manipulated.

Earth changes, and it has been changing by itself since it began. Nobody denies that... Yes, volcanic eruptions, forest fires, that stuff sends tons of carbon stored in earth to the atmosphere, right? And you do seem to agree that that's what forest fires and volcanic eruptions do, right? They fuck the earth up, after enough volcanic eruptions and enough forest fires and enough cow farts- they start to add up and start having effects on the way the planet works.

Except that this happens gradually, over millenia. Now, there are still forest fires, there are still volcanic eruptions, there are still all these natural factors going on, slowly changing the planet, EXCEPT THAT ON TOP of them, every single day, every single minute of every day, there's hundreds of millions of cars adding to the carbon of the forest fires, there's hundreds of millions of factories adding to the carbon of the volcanic eruptions, there's hundreds of millions of tons of WASTE released every day that just didn't exist before. All this shit is EXTRA. All this shit is BONUS. All that stuff is SPEEDING THE PROCESS that you just says happens naturally. Right now, in every single country in the world, everywhere on this planet from Ohio to Shanghai to Kiev, these cars, factories, whatever, they're running, burning, releasing, more every single day, building up.

For billions of years, the earth has been storing these mass amounts of carbon underneath. All that fossil fuel shit we're burning... It's BILLIONS of years of carbon which we have been LUCKY ENOUGH to have kept under the surface, and now we've just decided to send it all up in the air? That carbon's underneath for a reason- it fucks things up up here.

As for the scientists, I don't see the Halliburton connection. Are you asking if I'd disagree with these scientists on idological grounds? Well, in any case I was watching a documentary last week, it was about 2 Halliburton scientists who've designed some of the planned Mars missions, and it was very interesting. The best part, though, was on the section of actual colonization of Mars, and the subject of terraforming. One of them just laughed and said [roughly] "Well, heating up Mars and developing its atmosphere may actually be one of the easiest parts of the process- We're already doing that on Earth!" The suggestion was, basically and ironically enough, to set up big smog towers all over the place so that more sunlight is caught in, etc. etc. It's called "The Mars Underground" I'd recommend it.

Why is it so hard to believe that we're fucking up the earth? Is it really that unfathomable? I mean, after 200 years, with 6 billion of us around drilling, extracting, processing, consuming, trashing, and burning the planet. Is it just unlimited? Can it really go on forever with absolutely NO repercussions?

Hmmm.

It's not that it is so hard to believe that man is responsible, it's simply that there are so many more important factors to include in the calculation. Consider volcanoes, swamp gas, methane from cows, all of which outweigh human effects. And of course, the single greatest factor, natural sun cycles: consider melting ice on Mars.

The analogy to remember is this: the anthropogenic theory of global warming is comparable to the fear that the numbers of Americans retiring to Florida will cause the continent to flip over.

Let's remember that governments benefit by controlling industry, and scientists stay in business by getting government grants for research.

Yes, as I said before, there's lots of other factors that have been changing the planet. If we've thrived under this atmosphere, and thrived under the climatic conditions that we've been experiencing, WHY are we so DESPERATELY trying to speed up the process? Why are we trying to get this shit to change QUICKER?! We should be trying to do everything for it to stay the same as much as POSSIBLE, considering all the other problems we have to work out. I mean, Volcanos and Swamp gas, do they outweight our effects? By how much? What's the ratio? are we adding maybe 50% of what those two add? 20%? 10%?

I mean, its kind of ironic you mention methane from cows as outweighting the human cost, because that methane is actually one of the huge FACTORS of the human cost. Large scale agriculture is a HUMAN phenomenon. There's billions of cows on the planet because of US. Cows are an INTEGRAL part of our carbon footprint. BILLIONS of people, eating millions of tons of beef everyday, with millions of farms housing billions of cows, all of them farting every day... You're totally right that's a shitload of carbon. But it's only part of the carbon that WE'RE producing. I mean, every cow is its own tiny little greenhouse gas factory, you say it outweights the human carbon production, but fail to see that every single one of the millions of gas-spewing factories is like a SUPER cow producing EXPONENTIALLY more greenhouse gasses... ALONG with all the cows. Every cow producing its methane, supposedly outweighting the human effect, but every single on of the MILLIONS of cars on the street is its own super cow producing greenhouse gasses and spewing them out...

So lets forget about the warming for a second. We can see some shitty effects of all this at the micro level right? We can see the smog above major cities. We know there's bad effects from inhaling these gasses, regardless of whether they're warming the planet or not. We know what environmental degradation causes. Even totally forgetting about the methane, billions of cows are shitting billions of tons of shit every day, polluting all the water, wasting the water, driving up the price of food (especially affecting the world's poorest). Even forgetting about the greenhouse gasses, we're still utilizing LIMITED water resources for basically all industrial processes, and releasing back to the rivers. Even without greenhouse gasses, we're ENSLAVED to a GEOLOGICAL ACCIDENT, to a substance which is LIMITED, which IS running out and WILL run out, and which will eventually lead us down a path of war and destruction to control it. Every single day that passes is one day closer to the day in which there will be no more oil. Every single drop of oil you use for anything is one drop of oil that is NEVER coming back. How can we tie our very existence on something which is fast running out? What happens when it runs out? Well, if our existence is tied to it, then its game over, regardless of whether the planet's warmer or not.

The research utilized in that article in Nature was already discounted - as is so often the case with such examples - of course the discounted story was hardly printed, and the incorrect data continues to be circulated.

Can't find it. Show me.

-SIGH-

If you cannot "find it" this is proof that you either choose not to pay attention, or you are incapable of forming and educated opinion on this important topic.

Hey there, pal, I meant I can't find it because I wasn't sure what to type into google to find the "debunkations" of this ONE particular article. Jeez. To be honest I don't see how that relates to not forming an opinion on the subject. I have an opinion on the subject, as you can see above, so... uh, fuck off.

With that said, you have absolutely no idea how appreciative I am that finally, for once, someone on this board actually attempted to respond fully and with links and with reasoning to queary. I think that is very positive, and almost heartwarming and I mean that 100% non-sarcastically. I kinda got carried away with the other responses, so I'll take a look at these things and respond fully shortly. Thanks

 

[Old Rocks]

Sinatra;


Trust me - Steig is of little note - his kind is legion. He had one shot at elevating his status in the academic community, and he was roundly discounted for it as his data was proven false - the question is whether this was done with intention, or he simply was in error. There is in fact increasing pressure from within his own department to further explain the faults in his data - which to this point, Steig has partially resisted - there was an update, but not yet a "full disclosure" one. I feel a bit sorry for him actually, as he is caught in a bit of a bind on this, and understandably worried over the long term impacts to his career. I would not be a bit surprised to see him leave the UW within a couple years and end up somewhere else where he hopes to get a fresh start.
............................................

Why should I trust you? You have better credentials than Dr. Stieg? I see no evidence of that here. Nor have I seen anything but your opinion discounting his contributions to science.

 

[Old Rocks]

Sinatra;

The Antarctic as a whole is cooling down - one region has experienced warming, but the entire continent is getting colder. His job was to travel to the region to try and dissprove the data showing cooling - he attempted to do that via purpose or folly, and in the end, was smacked down hard when the data was properly reviewed.

...................................

So say you. But NASA says differant. So whom am I to trust, a poster on a message board, or NASA. Especially when I see no data backing your claim.

Antarctic Warming Trends : Image of the Day

Disintegration: Antarctic Warming Claims Another Ice Shelf : Feature Articles

Climate Change: The Next Generation: NASA GISS reports on Antarctic warming research by Eric Steig et al., Nature

 

[Sinatra]

You are aware that NASA was proven incorrect in its listing of United States warmest years, yes?

Yet another data error (purposeful or not?) was discovered by an independent science blogger and with the revisions, we now see that four of the top 10 warmest years since 1850 took place in the
1930's. Only 3 of the top 10 were from the last ten years - with several years of the last decade cooler than the year 1900. Mr. Hansen himself had to admit to the error - something I am certain he was loath to do.

Now this has been spun away as stating that while significant, the United States is not the world, so the fact we were in fact warmer several decades ago than we are now, that most of the years of this decade were in fact cooler than 1900, is not a statement of world temperatures.

Well...perhaps - but it certainly gives yet another example of the fallibility of the guestimate science that is global warming/climate change. (I mean c'mon, why do you really think they call it "climate change" now - could it be that perhaps the proponents of global warming are hedging their bets?)

You must also consider the climate fact that the earth was warmer from about 1100 -1400 than it is now - was that due to man-made causes?

And last year, the GISS was forced once again to admit an "error" - NASA had released a story indicating October of 2008 had been the warmest October on record...that was patently false. October 2008 was rather average temperature wise - and in fact cooler than temperatures of the last decade. Once again, NASA is shown to be either incompetent, or purposely attempting deception.

Now that we have established the fallibility of NASA, I would like to point you and others to an individual whose website can provide a wealth of information for those willing to approach this subject with an open mind, and not become overly rooted in long-standing beliefs held up more by personal pride than a more clear understanding.

I believe this individual, along with Leroux, is far closer to the truth behind the incredibly complicated climate of the earth than those cackling doom and gloom profiteers that now dominate the climate discourse.

Take some time to check out his site - and review the information. If you have further questions, feel free to post them here, though please don't request personal information/credentials of me, as this post is as close to my private life as I care to get on an Internet forum - thank you!

Don J. Easterbrook: Research - Global climate change, global warming

 

[RightofCenter]

I can safely say that Antarctica is wicked enough during austral summer. I was there in 1979/80 as a photographer, and we camped out by Butter point and with wind chills, it got down to 80 below. Mind you, we were sleeping in tents, we were nowhere near McMurdo, and the best part? You had to, and I am not bsing you, strip down to your last layer of clothing and then quickly get yer freezing butt into the 3 down arctic sleeping bags, nested inside each other.

It was hell going to bed and hell getting up.

 

[Old Rocks]

ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE
Although CO2 has long been recognized as a greenhouse gas, it makes up only ~0.03% of the
atmosphere (Figure 2), far less than water vapor (2-4%). Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen since 1945
to 0.038%, but the question is whether or not an increase of only 0.008% can overshadow the effects of
solar changes. The answer to this question may be found in the geologic record of global climate changes
and changes in atmospheric CO2.

That is from the site you posted, Sinatra. And we have the answer to the question that Easterbrook posed. Yes, the CO2 can overpower normal solar changes. A strong La Nina and a solar minimum, and still the globe had the eighth warmest year on record. So it seems that by his own petard he is hoisted.

 

[Sinatra]

ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE
Although CO2 has long been recognized as a greenhouse gas, it makes up only ~0.03% of the
atmosphere (Figure 2), far less than water vapor (2-4%). Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen since 1945
to 0.038%, but the question is whether or not an increase of only 0.008% can overshadow the effects of
solar changes. The answer to this question may be found in the geologic record of global climate changes
and changes in atmospheric CO2.

That is from the site you posted, Sinatra. And we have the answer to the question that Easterbrook posed. Yes, the CO2 can overpower normal solar changes. A strong La Nina and a solar minimum, and still the globe had the eighth warmest year on record. So it seems that by his own petard he is hoisted.

-Sigh_

That very quote indicates how little CO2 plays a part in the overall atmosphere - and if you study further the history of CO2, you will see that the current levels are well within the normal range over long periods of time. Man's contributions to CO2 are minimal compared to those naturally occuring by Mother Nature.

Also, that quote also states clearly that the question is if that minute increase of .08% can actually overcome the far greater impacts of solar changes. You are stating YES, but Easterbrook, a far stronger expert in this field, says NOT LIKELY.

You also don't appear to understand how solar minimums work - if we are at a solar minumum in 2009, those effects won't be fully realized until a number of years later - that is why solar minimums impact climate cycles of 5-30 years, much as when the sun starts to "spark up" - which is what it started to do in the 1980's resulting in the gradual temperature increases of the 1990s.

Go back and do a more thorough reading of Easterbrook please - even your attempts at cherry picking are falling far short of a fair understanding of his considerable work on this topic. You are better than that.

Continue to seek the truth, but please do so with an honest and open attempt at finding said truth.

Thank you!

(PS - just an FYI...please note in your continued studies that 1998 was a La Nina year as well as being heavily influenced by increased residual solar activity...)

PSS - here is a nice start to your new climate enlightenment. Now please take the time to both read and consider the information - I am beginning to fear you read very little of anything that does not conform to your pre-determined considerations of this topic - we need not utilize such minds in here...

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MSU...ontinue_to_Diverge_from_Global_Data_Bases.pdf

 

[Chris]

The Antarctic was cooling because there is a hole in the ozone there that we created.

The Antarctic ice shelves are melting because they are in the water, and the water is heating up.

 

[Sinatra]

The Antarctic was cooling because there is a hole in the ozone there that we created.

The Antarctic ice shelves are melting because they are in the water, and the water is heating up.

Uh-Huh.

And there was no housing bubble...

 

[Sinatra]

ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE
Although CO2 has long been recognized as a greenhouse gas, it makes up only ~0.03% of the
atmosphere (Figure 2), far less than water vapor (2-4%). Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen since 1945
to 0.038%, but the question is whether or not an increase of only 0.008% can overshadow the effects of
solar changes. The answer to this question may be found in the geologic record of global climate changes
and changes in atmospheric CO2.

That is from the site you posted, Sinatra. And we have the answer to the question that Easterbrook posed. Yes, the CO2 can overpower normal solar changes. A strong La Nina and a solar minimum, and still the globe had the eighth warmest year on record. So it seems that by his own petard he is hoisted.

-Sigh_

That very quote indicates how little CO2 plays a part in the overall atmosphere - and if you study further the history of CO2, you will see that the current levels are well within the normal range over long periods of time. Man's contributions to CO2 are minimal compared to those naturally occuring by Mother Nature.

Also, that quote also states clearly that the question is if that minute increase of .08% can actually overcome the far greater impacts of solar changes. You are stating YES, but Easterbrook, a far stronger expert in this field, says NOT LIKELY.

You also don't appear to understand how solar minimums work - if we are at a solar minumum in 2009, those effects won't be fully realized until a number of years later - that is why solar minimums impact climate cycles of 5-30 years, much as when the sun starts to "spark up" - which is what it started to do in the 1980's resulting in the gradual temperature increases of the 1990s.

Go back and do a more thorough reading of Easterbrook please - even your attempts at cherry picking are falling far short of a fair understanding of his considerable work on this topic. You are better than that.

Continue to seek the truth, but please do so with an honest and open attempt at finding said truth.

Thank you!

(PS - just an FYI...please note in your continued studies that 1998 was a La Nina year as well as being heavily influenced by increased residual solar activity...)

PSS - here is a nice start to your new climate enlightenment. Now please take the time to both read and consider the information - I am beginning to fear you read very little of anything that does not conform to your pre-determined considerations of this topic - we need not utilize such minds in here...

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MSU...ontinue_to_Diverge_from_Global_Data_Bases.pdf

...

 

[Chris]

The Antarctic was cooling because there is a hole in the ozone there that we created.

The Antarctic ice shelves are melting because they are in the water, and the water is heating up.

Uh-Huh.

And there was no housing bubble...

Irrelevant.

Nice try at changing the subject though.

 

[Sinatra]

The Antarctic was cooling because there is a hole in the ozone there that we created.

The Antarctic ice shelves are melting because they are in the water, and the water is heating up.

Uh-Huh.

And there was no housing bubble...

Irrelevant.

Nice try at changing the subject though.

My God boy - this is too easy! You have just been completely walled in by your own words!

 

[Chris]

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. We are adding billions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

You cannot deny these facts.

All you can do is change the subject and insult.

 

[Sinatra]

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. We are adding billions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

You cannot deny these facts.

All you can do is change the subject and insult.

Really?

Your fixation on CO2, while amusing, only works to reduce your own credibility in understanding the complexities of the earth's climate.

And my God boy - you actually posted Wiki in here.

Have you no shame? No decency? No self-respect?