Worst fireseason in recorded history

[Chris]

The data comes from NOAA-NASA, they are Exxon butt boys huh?

Dipshit

No, it comes from the World Climate Report in 2006.

What does that have to do with a drought in California in 2008?

Insults do not make convincing arguments.

 

[jreeves]

No, it comes from the World Climate Report in 2006.

What does that have to do with a drought in California in 2008?

Insults do not make convincing arguments.

between 1981 and 2000 using NOAA-NASA Pathfinder, “The total annual burned area has not increased in the last 20 years”

 

[Chris]

between 1981 and 2000 using NOAA-NASA Pathfinder, “The total annual burned area has not increased in the last 20 years”

The drought occurred in the last 2 years, not the last 20.

This year is the driest on record in California.

 

[jreeves]

The drought occurred in the last 2 years, not the last 20.

This year is the driest on record in California.

When did CO2 emmissions increase drastically? Hasn't CO2 emmissions increased by 30% since 1880, but only in the last two years in effected CA. I see, don't you see a problem with that conclusion?

 

[Chris]

When did CO2 emmissions increase drastically? Hasn't CO2 emmissions increased by 30% since 1880, but only in the last two years in effected CA. I see, don't you see a problem with that conclusion?

No, I don't.

CO2 emissions are accelerating as is the melting of the Arctic. We are going to see a lot of weird sh*t once the pole melts completely.

 

[Diuretic]

No, I don't.

CO2 emissions are accelerating as is the melting of the Arctic. We are going to see a lot of weird sh*t once the pole melts completely.

Yep, like certain Pacific islands having to be totally evacuated and their populations re-settled as the islands go under water.

 

[jreeves]

No, I don't.

CO2 emissions are accelerating as is the melting of the Arctic. We are going to see a lot of weird sh*t once the pole melts completely.

Even with CO2 emmissions accelerating there has been no warming in the Artic since the 30's.....

 

[Diuretic]

Think about both poles, not just your northern one. Typical hemisphere dominance

 

[jreeves]

Think about both poles, not just your northern one. Typical hemisphere dominance

Ok...
.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.
This time the media is promoting the ice loss of one tiny fraction of the giant ice-covered continent and completely ignoring the current record ice growth on Antarctica. Contrary to media hype, the vast majority of Antarctica has cooled over the past 50 years and ice coverage has grown to record levels since satellite monitoring began in the 1979, according to peer-reviewed studies and scientists who study the area. (LINK)

 

[Diuretic]

Or..

1999 - CSIRO - Southern ocean evidence for global warming

Media Release - Ref 1999/167 - Jul 29 , 1999

Southern ocean evidence for global warming
Ocean warming has caused an eight per cent increase in rainfall over the Southern Ocean and South Pacific over the past 20 years, say Australian scientists in a new report.

Their research is published this week in the scientific journal Nature.

The research team from the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre (ACRC) and CSIRO reports a systematic decrease of salinity or 'freshening' occurring in waters deeper than 500 metres in the Indian Ocean, the Tasman Sea and the North and South Pacific.

According to oceanographer Ms Annie Wong of the Antarctic CRC, Hobart, warmer ocean temperatures are intensifying the cycle of rainfall, introducing greater volumes of fresh water to the sub-polar regions.

Observations at the surface are too sparse to directly measure this effect, says Ms Wong, but confirmation of the process has been found in the deep ocean.

"This is the first evidence from deep ocean measurements for systematic increases of rainfall patterns over the polar oceans," she says.

2008

Ocean warming on the rise (Media Release)

Increased scientific confidence that ocean observations are accurately reflecting rising global temperatures is central to new Australian research published today in the journal, Nature.

19 June 2008

The team of Australian and US climate researchers found the world’s oceans warmed and rose at a rate 50 per cent faster in the last four decades of the 20th century than documented in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report (IPCC AR4).

The research gives significantly greater credibility to the way climate models simulate the degree of warming in the world’s oceans – a key indicator of sea-level rise and climate change.

The results were added to other recent estimates of contributions to sea-level rise, including glaciers, ice caps, Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and thermal expansion changes in the deep ocean. The sum of all contributions is more consistent with observed sea-level rise than earlier studies.

Consistent eh?

 

[jreeves]

Or..

1999 - CSIRO - Southern ocean evidence for global warming


2008

Ocean warming on the rise (Media Release)




Consistent eh?

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

Excerpt: All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously. A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it's the single fastest temperature change every recorded, either up or down. […] Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on. No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

 

[Charles_Main]

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

Excerpt: All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously. A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it's the single fastest temperature change every recorded, either up or down. […] Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on. No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

Just more proof of what I have been trying to tell people for awhile now. We simply do not have enough data to really know what is going to happen. I never understand why people are so willing to buy the projections of the GW crowd, when the weather guy can not even accurately predict the weather for more than 7 to 10 days out, and the Hurricane season forcastors are so wrong so much of the time.

We literally only have a few hundred years of accurate temp readings, and then not from enough places around the world, and they are trying to make predictions off of it.

Reminds me of that movie about the robot, what was it, where he kept saying


"need more data. need more data, Input input"

 

[Diuretic]

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

Excerpt: All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously. A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it's the single fastest temperature change every recorded, either up or down. […] Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on. No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

Naughty - this is from a politician's blog and denialist Inhofe at that.

I've tried to use objective scientific sources (not that I'm in any sense a scientist or knowledgeable about science but I can read plain English). I'm not keen on using blogs that cite the thoroughly discredited Lomborg. That's just propaganda.

 

[jreeves]

Naughty - this is from a politician's blog and denialist Inhofe at that.

I've tried to use objective scientific sources (not that I'm in any sense a scientist or knowledgeable about science but I can read plain English). I'm not keen on using blogs that cite the thoroughly discredited Lomborg. That's just propaganda.

It uses data collected from all the major temperature tracking outlets...I guess they are partisan....

 

[jreeves]

It uses data collected from all the major temperature tracking outlets...I guess they are partisan....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY&feature=related]YouTube - Global Warming Hoax[/ame]

 

[Diuretic]

It uses data collected from all the major temperature tracking outlets...I guess they are partisan....

I'll be happy to read about the use of the data by objective expert presenters but I must admit to being wary about data which is used in a partisan manner by anyone. The old saw about lies, damned lies and stastics is obvious but it's relevant.

I admit to getting glazed eyes when I read data and associated allegations from anyone who isn't a bona fide scientific expert in the field. This means I will generally ignore statisticians or people who read the weather on tv when they pronounce on the climate. I will pay attention to credible scientific authorities.

The sad part about all this is that vested interests have turned it into yet another partisan political topic and do their best to confuse the majority of us who aren't scientists. So we dutifully line up underneath the appropriate banners and trade cut and pastes without addressing why we think the way we do.

For mine I'll trust the scientists and as long as they explain this stuff to me in plain English so that I can understand it I'll accept their views. I'll also take the position of Pascal's Wager on climate change. I'll vote as if it does exist rather than take the chance that it doesn't and then watch the damage being done. I'll also vote to ensure that our actions to reduce anthropomorphic climate change are carried out as necessary and not for some sort of philosophical or ideological reason.

 

[jreeves]

I'll be happy to read about the use of the data by objective expert presenters but I must admit to being wary about data which is used in a partisan manner by anyone. The old saw about lies, damned lies and stastics is obvious but it's relevant.

I admit to getting glazed eyes when I read data and associated allegations from anyone who isn't a bona fide scientific expert in the field. This means I will generally ignore statisticians or people who read the weather on tv when they pronounce on the climate. I will pay attention to credible scientific authorities.

The sad part about all this is that vested interests have turned it into yet another partisan political topic and do their best to confuse the majority of us who aren't scientists. So we dutifully line up underneath the appropriate banners and trade cut and pastes without addressing why we think the way we do.

For mine I'll trust the scientists and as long as they explain this stuff to me in plain English so that I can understand it I'll accept their views. I'll also take the position of Pascal's Wager on climate change. I'll vote as if it does exist rather than take the chance that it doesn't and then watch the damage being done. I'll also vote to ensure that our actions to reduce anthropomorphic climate change are carried out as necessary and not for some sort of philosophical or ideological reason.

Sure....CO2 emmissions have increased by 30% since 1880. But some scientists have jumped on full force trying to link temperature and CO2 emmissions even though global temperature has only changed .5 degrees centigrade, to make themselves rich. There is absolutely no proof of global warming. A lot of scientists said we were in a global cooling period in the 70's, what the hell happened to that?

 

[Diuretic]

Sure....CO2 emmissions have increased by 30% since 1880. But some have jumped on full force to make themselves rich. There is absolutely no proof of global warming. A lot of scientists said we were in a global cooling period in the 70's, what the hell happened to that?

What about anthropomorphic climate change? Do you think that exists?

 

[jreeves]

What about anthropomorphic climate change? Do you think that exists?

No and No

 

[Diuretic]

Okay.

I do think it exists. But I think we can do something about it.

I think it exists because credible scientists have demonstrated that it does.

CSIRO scientists and the climate change debate (Feature Article)

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
They are among more than 2 000 scientists who contributed to global understanding of climate change impacts and adaptation, risk, and opportunities for mitigation collated in 2007 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Findings
The IPCC confirmed that human activity has increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide – in 2007 at its highest level for 650 000 years.

The presence of such high concentrations of greenhouse gases is altering the Earth’s climate, raising temperatures and impacting on the landscape.

The science is complex, involving physical and chemical processes of the oceans, atmosphere and polar and glacial regions.

Researchers use satellites, ships, buoys and robots to observe these processes; and model the processes to look back at past changes.

I'm pleased that those same scientists are looking at practical ways of dealing with it.

Climate Change

This has led to - at least my government - looking at what needs to be done about it.

Garnaut Climate Change Review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I said before, I don't trust the vested interests which just want to deluge us with propaganda. I've seen what's happening here, I've seen our governments indulging in partisan squabbling about water while our main river system is dying. I'm now very keen to keep our politicians focussed on the reality of climate change because I don't want it to get to the point where it's irreversible.