the glacier thread. please post your glacier info here.

[FactFinder]

CO2, Temperatures, and Ice Ages « Watts Up With That?

Guest post by Frank Lansner, civil engineer, biotechnology.

Fig 4. Except for the well known fact that temperature changes precede CO2 changes, the supposed CO2-driven raise of temperatures works ok before temperature reaches max peak. No, the real problems for the CO2-rescue hypothesis appears when temperature drops again. During almost the entire temperature fall, CO2 only drops slightly. In fact, CO2 stays in the area of maximum CO2 warming effect. So we have temperatures falling all the way down even though CO2 concentrations in these concentrations where supposed to be a very strong upwards driver of temperature.

 

[FactFinder]

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise? - Warming Fears in 'Dustbin of History'

'No evidence for accelerated sea-level rise'

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.
Link to Intro and full report:

Link to Full Printable PDF Report

POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

 

[FactFinder]

The Cause of Global Warming is not Carbon Dioxide or Humans.

Reversing Cause and Effect

When CO2 measurements could be made in ice core samples, it was found that over the past 150 thousand years (more than one ice age cycle) the CO2 levels in the air tracked with temperatures. This finding was said to be critical in convincing many scientists of the influence of CO2 on climate and ice ages. But that rationale turns on a hinge point of viewing CO2 as cause rather than effect. If CO2 is effect of temperatures, the result is no more than a curiosity in line with expected chemistry. All basic principles indicated that CO2 should increase with temperatures—as effect, not cause—because warmer oceans release more CO2. To pretend that CO2 causes the temperature increases just because of a correlation is not valid, because it is the reverse of what is expected from established principles. External Reference

 

[FactFinder]

Science that threatens dissenting opinions is no science at all.

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

EPA Chief Vows to Probe E-mail Threatening to
‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic

During today’s hearing, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, confronted Stephen Johnson, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with a threatening e-mail from a group of which EPA is currently a member. The e-mail threatens to “destroy” the career of a climate skeptic. Michael T. Eckhart, president of the environmental group the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), wrote in an email on July 13, 2007 to Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI):

“It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on."

 

[FactFinder]

Oh and since this the glacier thread perhaps there should be a mention.

The Geology News Blog · Mount St. Helens’ Glacier Growing
Mount St. Helens’ Glacier Growing
Wednesday, April 23, 2008 in Volcanoes by Dave Schumaker | No comments

A glacier inside the crater of Mount St. Helens is apparently one of the few glaciers in the world that is actually growing. Measurements and observations by scientists from the USGS show that the volume of ice is increasing and that two “glacial arms” wrapping around the new lava dome (formed as a result of the eruption beginning in 2004) will eventually meet.

“We’ve all been surprised at how little melt has actually happened,” said Carolyn Driedger, a hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Vancouver. “Intuitively, you would certainly expect more snow and ice melt.”

This one and hundreds of others must not have gotten the memo.

 

[Chris]

CO2, Temperatures, and Ice Ages « Watts Up With That?

Guest post by Frank Lansner, civil engineer, biotechnology.

Fig 4. Except for the well known fact that temperature changes precede CO2 changes, the supposed CO2-driven raise of temperatures works ok before temperature reaches max peak. No, the real problems for the CO2-rescue hypothesis appears when temperature drops again. During almost the entire temperature fall, CO2 only drops slightly. In fact, CO2 stays in the area of maximum CO2 warming effect. So we have temperatures falling all the way down even though CO2 concentrations in these concentrations where supposed to be a very strong upwards driver of temperature.

This is BS. We are not talking about the past. We are talking about what is happening now.

And what is happening now is unprecedented.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in just 200 years, and we are adding 8 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. Soon we will have doubled atmospheric CO2, and their is no sign that we will stop there.

 

[Old Rocks]

NASA Scientists Predict A Period Of Global........Cooling???!!! | Progressive U

NASA Scientists Predict A Period Of Global........Cooling???!!!
By DeanVX - Posted on January 13th, 2008
According to NASA scientists, the greatest influence on climate change isn't human activity. It turns out that solar activity has the greatest impact on our climate. The Space & Science Research Center (SSRC) recently posted an article on spaceandscience.net that states a period of global cooling will be taking place in the coming years. I've attached the weblink to the article here (Video & Audio Clips). In a nutshell, the sun isn't generating as many sunspots, which have a tremendous impact on our planet. As a result of there being fewer sunspots, the Earth will begin to cool. Also, these periods of warming & cooling have long been a part of the Earth's history, even before man came into being.

This is not a NASA paper. Indeed, these people are just more of the privately funded denial machine. Factfinder, get back to us when you find some real facts, not bullshit like this.

The Space and Science Research Center (SSRC) is (apparently) a for-profit company located in Orlando, FL. They appear to have an anti-global warming agenda, though their arguments have yet to be examined in detail. They present an appearance of scientific grounding, but they do not seem to have any peer-reviewed papers on their theories.
The SSRC appears to have been created sometime in late 2007 or early 2008; their domain, spaceandscience.net, was registered on 2007-11-10, and a press release dated 2008-01-14 mentions says that it is "In just its first days of activation".

[edit] first take
It seems likely that this group is essentially in the business of getting paid to come up with scientific-sounding justifications for any anti-global-warming message the customer wants to get across.

Their "RC Theory" report, which has some of the trappings of science (in its acknowledgements, it thanks Dr. Boris Komitov, now on the SSRC staff, for his "peer review" of the report), seems to be arguing that global temperatures will cool as the sun enters an expected cooling phase. The explanation of how this works, however, appears extremely fuzzy – which might be forgiven in a truly scientific paper (e.g. if the writing was highly technical and specialized, and hence difficult for a layperson to read), but the introduction implies that laypeople are among the target audience: "An important aspect of the theory is that it results in a set of tools for the predicting of global climate change decades in advance. As such, it offers the scientific community as well as the general public, a plausible means for understanding the natural and predictable shifts from global cooling to global warming and back to global cooling that have occurred for thousands of years in the past and will likely do so in the future." (emphasis added)

The report is marked as "Released for world wide web (www) distribution" and many (or all) of the images appear to be from freely-copyable sources as well, so a wiki reposting and analysis (fisking) seems called for.

Also, these guys really don't have good copy-editing help; there are misplaced commas all over the place. -W..
Space and Science Research Center - Issuepedia

 

[Chris]

Rut roh!

Foxfinder is busted again!

 

[Old Rocks]

CO2, Temperatures, and Ice Ages « Watts Up With That?

Guest post by Frank Lansner, civil engineer, biotechnology.

Fig 4. Except for the well known fact that temperature changes precede CO2 changes, the supposed CO2-driven raise of temperatures works ok before temperature reaches max peak. No, the real problems for the CO2-rescue hypothesis appears when temperature drops again. During almost the entire temperature fall, CO2 only drops slightly. In fact, CO2 stays in the area of maximum CO2 warming effect. So we have temperatures falling all the way down even though CO2 concentrations in these concentrations where supposed to be a very strong upwards driver of temperature.

OK, silly ass, both you and Watts. The ice ages are the result of two effects. The Milankovic Cycles. and the rapid, geologically speaking, removal of CO2 from the atmosphere by the weathering of rock in the Himalyas. In the Milankovic Cycles, the solar forcings caused by the earth's orbit and inclination are not enough to bring the planet out of the ice ages by themselves. However, as the southern ocean begins to warm, it emits CO2, causing a feedback effect and creating the interglacial periods like the present one.

A very simplified explanation of how the Milankovic Cycles work. Now, we have raised the atmospheric CO2 by about 40%, and are already seeing rapid heating and new feedbacks.

This is not an unprecidented situation. Massive releases of GHGs have happened in the geological past, the P-T extinction event, and the PETM, to name just two times. To think that this time, because we are the agent of causation of the GHGs, that the result will be differant is hubris and ignorance of an amazing sort.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh and since this the glacier thread perhaps there should be a mention.

The Geology News Blog · Mount St. Helens’ Glacier Growing
Mount St. Helens’ Glacier Growing
Wednesday, April 23, 2008 in Volcanoes by Dave Schumaker | No comments

A glacier inside the crater of Mount St. Helens is apparently one of the few glaciers in the world that is actually growing. Measurements and observations by scientists from the USGS show that the volume of ice is increasing and that two “glacial arms” wrapping around the new lava dome (formed as a result of the eruption beginning in 2004) will eventually meet.

“We’ve all been surprised at how little melt has actually happened,” said Carolyn Driedger, a hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Vancouver. “Intuitively, you would certainly expect more snow and ice melt.”

This one and hundreds of others must not have gotten the memo.

I can see Mt. St. Helens from my kitchen window. I have visited that mountain both before and after the eruption many times. Yes, there is a glacier that is growing in the crater. It is deep in a crater, protected from the sun by the south wall of the crater. It is also in a place that did not exist prior to 1980.

No, there are not hundreds of others that are growing, in fact, there may not even be 50.
The Landsat Program - News

 

[necritan]

I can see Mt. St. Helens from my kitchen window.

"I can see Russia from my house"

 

[elvis]

Rut roh!

Foxfinder is busted again!

rut roh. chrissie is being a fucking moron again.

 

[necritan]

Rut roh!

Red Rum!

 

[elvis]

Rut roh!

Red Rum!

kirky's gone away Mrs. Torrence.

 

[necritan]

Rut roh!

Red Rum!

kirky's gone away Mrs. Torrence.

All work and no Glaciers , makes Kirk a dull boy.

 

[elvis]

Oh and since this the glacier thread perhaps there should be a mention.

The Geology News Blog · Mount St. Helens’ Glacier Growing
Mount St. Helens’ Glacier Growing
Wednesday, April 23, 2008 in Volcanoes by Dave Schumaker | No comments

A glacier inside the crater of Mount St. Helens is apparently one of the few glaciers in the world that is actually growing. Measurements and observations by scientists from the USGS show that the volume of ice is increasing and that two “glacial arms” wrapping around the new lava dome (formed as a result of the eruption beginning in 2004) will eventually meet.

“We’ve all been surprised at how little melt has actually happened,” said Carolyn Driedger, a hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Vancouver. “Intuitively, you would certainly expect more snow and ice melt.”

This one and hundreds of others must not have gotten the memo.

I can see Mt. St. Helens from my kitchen window. I have visited that mountain both before and after the eruption many times. Yes, there is a glacier that is growing in the crater. It is deep in a crater, protected from the sun by the south wall of the crater. It is also in a place that did not exist prior to 1980.

No, there are not hundreds of others that are growing, in fact, there may not even be 50.
The Landsat Program - News

Hopefully it will erupt again.

 

[jreeves]

XINING, Feb. 4 (Xinhua) -- Chinese scientists said Wednesday glaciers that serve as water sources on the Qinghai-Tibet plateau are melting at a "worrisome speed," having receded 196 square km over the past nearly 40 years.

The decline is equal to about one-fourth of the area of New York City.

Xin Yuanhong, senior engineer in charge of a three-year field study of glaciers in the region, said glaciers at the headwaters of the Yangtze, China's longest river, cover 1,051 square km, down from 1,247 square km in 1971.

"The reduction means more than 989 million cubic meters of water melted away," said Xin, whose team surveyed the glaciers between June 2005 and August 2008. That much water would fill Beijing's largest reservoir.

Melting glaciers on China's Qinghai-Tibet plateau water source "worrisome"_English_Xinhua

I got a glacier in my backyard but its too large to take a picture.....lol

 

[FactFinder]

A Canadian researcher asking why GISS and NASA keep changing their numbers.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2964

Rewriting History, Time and Time Again
by John Goetz on April 6th, 2008
Update:

As noted in the comments below, GISS updated the GLB.Ts+dSST anomalies which show a large 0.67 degC value for March. This addition of March 2008 temperature data to the record caused a corresponding drop in annual average temperature for the years 1946 and 1903. According to GISS, 1946 is now colder than 1960 and 1972, and 1903 dropped into a tie with 1885, 1910 and 1912.

That's really neat.

End update.

In February I wrote a post asking How much Estimation is too much Estimation? I pointed out that a large number of station records contained estimates for the annual average. Furthermore, the number of stations used to calculate the annual average had been dropping precipitously for the past 20 years. One was left to wonder just how accurate the reported global average really was and how meaningful rankings of the warmest years had become.

One question that popped into my mind back then was whether or not - with all of the estimation going on - the historical record was static. One could reasonably expect that the record is static. After all, once an estimate for a given year is calculated there is no reason to change it, correct? That would be true if your estimate did not rely on new data added to the record, in particular temperatures collected at a future date. But in the case of GISStemp, this is exactly what is done.

Last September I noted that an estimate of a seasonal or quarterly temperature when one month is missing from the record depends heavily on averages for all three months in that quarter. This can be expressed by the following equation, where are the months in the quarter (in no particular order) and one of the three months is missing:

 

[FactFinder]

Man, I don't like posting this. I would much prefer being able to trust NASA. Has this thing become that politicized?

Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler? • The Register

Further examination of the NASA site might give us a clue as to what is happening.

NASA staff have done some recent bookkeeping and refined the data from 1930-1999. The issues has been discussed extensively at science blog Climate Audit. So what is the probability of this effort consistently increasing recent temperatures and decreasing older temperatures? From a statistical viewpoint, data recalculation should cause each year to have a 50/50 probability of going either up or down - thus the odds of all 70 adjusted years working in concert to increase the slope of the graph (as seen in the combined version) are an astronomical 2 raised to the power of 70. That is one-thousand-billion-billion to one. This isn't an exact representation of the odds because for some of the years (less than 15) the revisions went against the trend - but even a 55/15 split is about as likely as a room full of chimpanzees eventually typing Hamlet. That would be equivalent to flipping a penny 70 times and having it come up heads 55 times. It will never happen - one trillion to one odds (2 raised to the power 40.)

 

[Old Rocks]

Man, I don't like posting this. I would much prefer being able to trust NASA. Has this thing become that politicized?

Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler? • The Register

Further examination of the NASA site might give us a clue as to what is happening.

NASA staff have done some recent bookkeeping and refined the data from 1930-1999. The issues has been discussed extensively at science blog Climate Audit. So what is the probability of this effort consistently increasing recent temperatures and decreasing older temperatures? From a statistical viewpoint, data recalculation should cause each year to have a 50/50 probability of going either up or down - thus the odds of all 70 adjusted years working in concert to increase the slope of the graph (as seen in the combined version) are an astronomical 2 raised to the power of 70. That is one-thousand-billion-billion to one. This isn't an exact representation of the odds because for some of the years (less than 15) the revisions went against the trend - but even a 55/15 split is about as likely as a room full of chimpanzees eventually typing Hamlet. That would be equivalent to flipping a penny 70 times and having it come up heads 55 times. It will never happen - one trillion to one odds (2 raised to the power 40.)

And the scientific journal that this article was in is..............