Ocean, Arctic Studies Show Global Warming Is Real

[whipple]

Ocean, Arctic Studies Show Global Warming Is Real

<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="420"> <tbody><tr valign="middle"> <td width="40%"> <!-- Yahoo TimeStamp: 1108684655 --> <!-- timestamp 1108684655 210905 secs stale 28800 secs --> Thu Feb 17, 6:57 PM ET
</td> <td align="right" nowrap="nowrap" width="60%"> <table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="1%"> <tbody><tr><td width="1%">http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/my/addtomyyahoo3.gif (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/addtomy/*http://add.my.yahoo.com/content?id=6199&.src=yn&.done=http%3a//news.yahoo.com/news%3ftmpl=story2%26u=/nm/20050217/sc_nm/environment_climate_dc)</td><td nowrap="nowrap" width="99%"> Science - Reuters (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/addtomy/*http://add.my.yahoo.com/content?id=6199&.src=yn&.done=http%3a//news.yahoo.com/news%3ftmpl=story2%26u=/nm/20050217/sc_nm/environment_climate_dc)</td></tr></tbody></table> </td> </tr></tbody> </table> <!-- TextStart --> By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A parcel of studies looking at the oceans and melting Arctic ice leave no room for doubt that it is getting warmer, people are to blame, and the weather is going to suffer, climate experts said on Thursday.

<table align="left" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="1%"> <tbody><tr valign="top"> <td width="99%"> <!-- ult --> <center> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="150"> <tbody><tr valign="top"> <td> <!-- http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20050220/t/r2949134420.jpg && (http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20050220/t/r2949134420.jpg ~~ "http") --> <!-- SlideshowStart --> <table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <!-- SlideshowPhotoStart --> <tbody><tr valign="top"> <td colspan="2"><center> http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20050220/t/r2949134420.jpg (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:%20rs%28)
Reuters (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:%20rs%28) </center> </td> </tr> <!-- SlideshowPhotoEnd --> <tr valign="top"> <td width="1%">http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/auctions/cam.gif</td> <td width="99%"> Slideshow: Climate Change Issues (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:%20rs%28)</td> </tr></tbody></table>
<!-- SlideshowEnd --> <!-- endif --> </td></tr></tbody></table> </center> <!-- generated by static special_events_techtuesday_storypromo --> </td><td width="5">
</td></tr></tbody></table>

New computer models that look at ocean temperatures instead of the atmosphere show the clearest signal yet that global warming is well underway, said Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.



Speaking at an annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/nm/sc_nm/environment_climate_dc/14333948/*http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?fr=news-storylinks&p=%22Association%0Afor%20the%20Advancement%20of%20 Science%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw) - web sites (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/nm/sc_nm/environment_climate_dc/14333948/*http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=web-storylinks&p=Association%20for%20the%20Advancement%20of%20Sci ence)), Barnett said climate models based on air temperatures are weak because most of the evidence for global warming is not even there.



"The real place to look is in the ocean," Barnett told a news conference.



His team used millions of temperature readings made by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to calculate steady ocean warming.



"The debate over whether or not there is a global warming signal is now over, at least for rational people," he said.


SNIP


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20050217/sc_nm/environment_climate_dc



***************************
Day after tommorrow here we come. Make sure to stock up on life jackets and warm woolly fleeces :crazy:

[ILikeIke]

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=220425#post220425

[Naturalized-Texan]

Yeah, the left-wing environmental-Nazis would like us to believe the crap they spew about global warming, but anyone who is informed knows full well that the less than one degree warming we have experienced in the past 100+ years is the result of the natural recovery from the 500-year Little Ice Age that ended in the 19th Century. In the link that Clint posted there is proof that most of the glaciers in the world are advancing, e.g., the Greenland glacier is advancing 7.2 miles per year (http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm). After 6,000 years of thinning, the Antarctic Ice Sheet has been steadily THICKENING (http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet.htm) for the past 30 years. The truth is that there is as much evidence of global cooling as there is of global warming. Since Ice Ages run in 20,000-year cycles and it has been almost 20,000 years since the last major Ice Age, it's more likely that we are heading towards another Ice Age.

[kate]

lol oh no not that topic again..

whipple: thanks for the article, was interesting to read.

[Naturalized-Texan]

As anyone can see from the links I posted above and from the link that Clint posted, the fact is that glaciers are growing world-wide, lies from the enviroNazis notwithstanding. In face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, how any informed person can pretend that warming is being caused by human activity is beyond understanding.

Everyone should read State of Fear by Michael Crichton since he provides overwhelming evidence that global warming is a natural phenomonon that can't be stopped no matter what we do. We are powerless to stop nature.

[Naturalized-Texan]

New computer models that look at ocean temperatures instead of the atmosphere show the clearest signal yet that global warming is well underway, said Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

Speaking at an annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Barnett said climate models based on air temperatures are weak because most of the evidence for global warming is not even there.
No matter what the enviroNazis say, computer models are NOT proof of anything. Computer models can't even replicate past climate, so there is no way that they can predict anything in the future with any accuracy. Worse yet, computer models are subject to GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out) and the enviroNazis are masters at putting garbage into the models to make them spit out the false data they need to spread their lies.

"The debate over whether or not there is a global warming signal is now over, at least for rational people"
Absolutely! Since the global warming is completely natural, there is no longer any room for debate. We can't change nature.

[DesertFox]

By our political standards Whipple's a Lefty. One can expect him to have bought the Lefty side of the argument.

[Naturalized-Texan]

There has been no net Arctic warming since 1938 (http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Arctic.htm)

Once again claims are flying thick and fast regarding dramatic, in fact, unprecedented Arctic warming.

Once again, we look at the available data, now updated to the end of 2004.

Once again, we find the claims to be dead flat wrong.

...........

So, according to data from the Global Historical Climatology Network (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/climatedata.html#MONTHLY) (GHCN), from this file (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/ZonAnn.Ts.txt) hosted by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/) (GISS), there has been no net Arctic warming since 1938, the Arctic did warm quite abruptly over the two decades prior to that, has subsequently cooled and (nearly) recovered to what it was before being so rudely interrupted.

Beyond all doubt atmospheric carbon dioxide content has increased over the period, mainly from about the time the Arctic shifted to cooling mode for a spell. That trace gas increase has had no apparent effect on the Arctic's post-LIA {Little Ice Age} warming.

Since the rate of warming is unchanged and the net Arctic temperature has not increased in almost 7 decades it is very difficult to see what all the hysteria is about.

{More at the link above.}

[whipple]

By our political standards Whipple's a Lefty. One can expect him to have bought the Lefty side of the argument.

lol, my political leanings didn't really have anything to do with it. Personally I think the global warming issue is a little too complex to be something I can have a valid opinion on. However I did think the article might be useful in stirring up the hornets nest here :D

[Naturalized-Texan]

lol, my political leanings didn't really have anything to do with it. Personally I think the global warming issue is a little too complex to be something I can have a valid opinion on. However I did think the article might be useful in stirring up the hornets nest here :D
Doesn't it even bother you that the article is nothing but a pack of lies?

[tacitus]

Like a festering boil, the global warming crap is back to irriate all of us with it's crap. :duh:

[whipple]

Doesn't it even bother you that the article is nothing but a pack of lies?

I suppose it would if I could think of a valid reason for them wanting to lie about it. Why spend all that money on perpetuating a lie that isn't going to make anyone richer?

[DoctorDoom]

We are powerless to stop nature.Stop nature? We are powerless to affect nature, period. It's unbridled human arrogance to think that anything we can do is sufficient to make even the tiniest bit of difference on a global scale. There have been warming and cooling cycles for as long as there has been weather.

We would be far more gainfully occupied in planning ways to stop alien invasions.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I suppose it would if I could think of a valid reason for them wanting to lie about it. Why spend all that money on perpetuating a lie that isn't going to make anyone richer?
The UN Commission on Global Governance (http://www.nationalreview.com/01sept97/bailey090197.html) and the pseudo-scientists that have prostrated themselves on the altar of world socialism are promoting the global warming scare for the purpose of establishing world socialism under UN control so that the UN can control the economies of every nation in the world, especially the U.S. economy.

[whipple]

The UN Commission on Global Governance (http://www.nationalreview.com/01sept97/bailey090197.html) and the pseudo-scientists that have prostrated themselves on the altar of world socialism are promoting the global warming scare for the purpose of establishing world socialism under UN control so that the UN can control the economies of every nation in the world, especially the U.S. economy.

Having read the article I have to say you may have a point there. Would you say that we are likely to be heading into another cold war here, this time between Europe and America as they both try to lay claim to global governance?

[Faithful_Servant]

whipple, the idea that America and W. Europe would enter into a Cold War is utterly ludicrous. Even the liberal/socialist gov't of W. Europe have got enough common sense to understand that WE are the big dog on the block. Besides, some our strongest allies in the coming decades are going to come out of E. Europe, so fighting a Cold War with your enemies allies in bed with you would be even stupider.

As far as global warming is concerned...
There is no evidence of any warming, beyond some localized, night-time, seasonal flucuations that are well within normal variance. Global warming is nothing more than a ploy being used by the UN to transfer money and technology from the northern industrialized countries to southern 'poor' countries. Read the book "Environmental Overkill" by Dixy Lee Ray. It's a VERY well researched piece written around 1990. Start at teh end and read the last part. The quotes that you'll read from leading environmentalists will blow you away. Comparing the loss of jobs due to the Northern Spotted Owl to the loss of jobs due to Dachau being shut down. People wanting us to live the same kind of life that world lived in during the Dark Ages. Declaring that man is not a part of nature and should be removed from it. These are some of the worst that humanity has to offer and should be ignored at the least and thrown in jail for fraud at the worst.

[whipple]

I was being rhetorical but you are right, no-ones stupid enough to go to war with the U.S.

[sunsettommy]

Hmm... "Human prints on warming: Our influence on ocean temps may have catastrophic consequences, scientists say" (http://www.nynewsday.com/news/health/ny-hswarm204151947feb20,0,7781475.story?coll=ny-health-headlines) - "WASHINGTON - Scientists have announced what they say is stunning evidence of ocean warming linked to human activity over the past 40 years." (Newsday)
This "computer model-aided" and as yet unpublished "study" is getting way more attention than it so far deserves. If empirical measures indicate the oceans are warming in an alarming or unusual manner (show us the data!) then why does it have to be modeled at all? Against what baseline data is the alleged warming referenced? (Actually not a fair question since there is a dearth of ocean temperature information. This situation will improve over time, especially as the drifting submersible buoy project continues but that will still only give us a rudimentary snapshot against which future data may be usefully compared.) What rate of warming should be considered "normal" for the oceans post Little Ice Age or are we "doing a Mann" and writing such inconveniences out of history? If definitive proof or even moderately good evidence of anthropogenic warning is in this study then why was it pre-empted in a talking head media conference rather than being broken in the AAAS's own flagship publication Science? Or is peer review now neutered to such pitiful lip service that the pretence is no longer made? Given past experience with science-by-press-release the most stunning thing about this will be if there's any evidence in it at all.

_____________________________________________

I see that Nauralized Texan is on the job,exposing this latest distortion and lies.

:claps:

[sunsettommy]

So is the Antarctic Ice Sheet. According to a report in Science (Jan 2002), new measurements show that the ice in parts of Antarctica is thickening. One week earlier, an article in Nature reported that Antarctica's harsh desert valleys - long considered a bellwether for global climate change - have grown noticeably cooler since the mid-1980s.

(Click here to see construction crane buried in the Antarctic Ice Sheet (http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet.htm)).


To put this in perspective, you must realize that the Antarctic Ice Sheet and Greenland Ice Sheets are almost twice as big as the contiguous United States. They're almost 100 times bigger than all of the rest of the world's glaciers put together. In other words, more than 99 percent of the world's glaciers are growing ... and all we hear about are the few that are melting.


And that's why sea levels are falling. That's where the water comes from to build glaciers; from the seas.
http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

__________________________________________________ ______

There is a HUGE list in the link of reports of EXPANDING Glaciers,the above posted is just a small excerpt.

[whipple]

And that's why sea levels are falling. That's where the water comes from to build glaciers; from the seas.

What evidence is there of this? I can name loads of areas where the sea level is rising.

[DesertFox]

Let's hear 'em. With links, please.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I can name loads of areas where the sea level is rising.
Name them with links, please. I suggest that you read State of Fear by Michael Crichton where he provides scientific proof with references that sea levels are NOT rising. That is a book of fiction, but the science is FACT with footnotes, graphs, and charts from recent scientific sources.

[whipple]

Name them with links, please. I suggest that you read State of Fear by Michael Crichton where he provides scientific proof with references that sea levels are NOT rising. That is a book of fiction, but the science is FACT with footnotes, graphs, and charts from recent scientific sources.

Hmmm, off the top of my head, how about Holland and Venice. Loads of areas in the UK. Heck the harbour in Dublin is under going construction work to compensate for the higher ocean level.

Links
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/yourenv/639312/641102/643337/644011/?version=1&lang3=_e

[DesertFox]

Venice ain't on no ocean. It's on the Danube.

[whipple]

http://www.infoplease.com/images/mitaly.gif

[Faithful_Servant]

Hmmm, off the top of my head, how about Holland and Venice. Loads of areas in the UK. Heck the harbour in Dublin is under going construction work to compensate for the higher ocean level.

Links
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/yourenv/639312/641102/643337/644011/?version=1&lang3=_e
whipple, here's a little secret I thought I'd let you in on....
Venice and Holland are sinking!!!!

With someone like you teaching the youth of Ireland, I fear for your countries future.

[Naturalized-Texan]

whipple, here's a little secret I thought I'd let you in on....
Venice and Holland are sinking!!!!

With someone like you teaching the youth of Ireland, I fear for your countries future.
And it's also likely that Dublin is sinking. The area where we live in Texas is also sinking because of so many years of extracting our drinking water from underground wells. Fortunately, with the switch to getting nearly all of our water from aboveground sources, the sinking has all but stopped.

[sunsettommy]

Hmmm, off the top of my head, how about Holland and Venice. Loads of areas in the UK. Heck the harbour in Dublin is under going construction work to compensate for the higher ocean level.

Links
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/yourenv/639312/641102/643337/644011/?version=1&lang3=_e


I am sorry to say,but your link is TERRIBLE! It is a shallow website,one if you really looked a little,would quickly see that it is not a place where they thirst for knowledge,but instead a place to channel,ignorant people into action.

Here is a section from your own link:
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/yourenv/639312/641102/643337/643374/?lang=e

Preparing for climate change

Since 1988, more than 3000 climate scientists, ecologists, technologists and economists from round the world have formed an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, under the auspices of the United Nations.

The panel’s pioneering assessments amount to a scientific consensus on climate change, its likely impacts and what we can do about it.

For most of that time, the key science working group has had its headquarters at the British Meteorological Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research. Its early reports persuaded governments of the seriousness of the problem and informed the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol.
__________________________________________________ _____-
It is about the laughable IPCC,a very biased and easily pecked apart,error prone organization.Hint,it is a GOVERNMENTAL panel! United Nations!:laugh:

Now can you see in this section why it is not a reliable source on Climate Research? Hint,See where I show it in the bold.

scientific consensus Not a valid way to gain knowledge.Then too it sheds no understanding based on how many people believe in something.IT MUST BE PROVEN!

Its early reports persuaded governments They were WAY OFF in the initial reports on the PREDICTED temperature increases.

informed the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol. There goes their scientific credibility as the Kyoto Protocol has since been shown to be scientifically worthless.

Please show us better links.

[sunsettommy]

http://www.john-daly.com/

Sea Levels: The `Isle of the Dead'
Recently, the world's media was abuzz with reports from Tasmania that a 160-year-old tidal mark had been found in south-eastern Tasmania, and that scientists had concluded that it showed evidence of `dramatic' sea level rise during the 20th century.

The media blitz which preceded a public lecture given in Hobart by the scientists involved, spoke volumes about the wider political agenda at stake.

Now the full details about exactly what these scientists think they have found - and more importantly the errors they have made - and the fragile statistical base upon which their `sea level rise' scenario rests, is all detailed in this report on Tasmanian Sea Levels.

__________________________________________________ _______________

Try this link and scroll 2/3 of the way down to the section about SEA Levels.It is interesting read and is the site of a very old and still used marker of sea level,dating from the mid 1800's.

[DesertFox]

:smack:

[Naturalized-Texan]

As I remember, the 3,000 "scientists" who endorsed the IPCC mostly consisted of non-scientists or scientists who were not in fields applicable to atmospheric science.

[whipple]

I stand corrected. I haven't found any info on holland sinking, but venice is certainly going due south.

Please show us better links.

I have to say the link you provided smacks of conspiracy theory and certainly doesn't convince me of anything to the contrary. Forgive me if I stick with mine.

[sunsettommy]

It is up to each one of us to learn what is reliable and what is not.I have been interested in this subject since the 1970's.I have seen many climate researchers make wild statements on the "doomsday" predictions,only later to be shown that they were wrong and that was because they went into a chicken little event.

I disparaged YOUR link because it has the ideological posture that Global Warming is bad,when in actual evidence of the past climaticological history shows the very opposite,we live better and healthier in a warmer Earth.It is pitiful when such a group of scientists decide BEFORE they have evidence that both a Global Warming and Climate Change is bad.

Then too the scientists seem to see that "Climate Change" is bad,when actually the climate is ALWAYS changing.

I have been reading many of these types of links over the years,and they do not impress me with their INTEGRITY,they have DISTORTED and LIED many times,and that is why I do not like or trust the U.N. IPCC group.They even now despite the overwhelming proof that the "Hockey Stick" paper given by Mann is a bad research and subsequently disproven,still accept such a paper i9n their report.That is an indication that it is a bad source of objective climate information.

Now your statement:

I have to say the link you provided smacks of conspiracy theory and certainly doesn't convince me of anything to the contrary. Forgive me if I stick with mine.

My reply:

It is obvious you did not read up on the Sea Level that John Daly wrote.He shows several documents and photos in his report,he even gave us MAPS too.He did a good job exposing the medias errors and also the scientists as well.What does YOUR link give us on Sea level? :duh:

There are a lot of links to suspect organizations such as the IPCC and Mann in his website as well.What does YOUR link show for links to other places?:duh:

Cheers.

[whipple]

Okay you want a better link with pretty pictures and meaningless graphs. will this one do?
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsSeaLevelRiseIndex.html

Personally Global warming isn't something I care about, but the idea that the U.N. is using global warming as an excuse to take over the world is too much of stretch for me. I think I'll stick to scientific journals for my info on the situation.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Personally Global warming isn't something I care about, but the idea that the U.N. is using global warming as an excuse to take over the world is too much of stretch for me. I think I'll stick to scientific journals for my info on the situation.
By sticking to real scientific journals rather than the politically-inspired junk science you have been spouting, you would learn that there is no scientific basis to the claims that global warming is caused by human activities. You would also learn that the warming we are experencing is nothing more than a natural recovery from the 500-year Little Ice Age that ended 100+ years ago, you would also learn that both the Greenland ice cap and the Antarctic ice cap are actually thickening, and you would learn that there is no evidence that there has been any rise in sea levels.

[whipple]

By sticking to real scientific journals rather than the politically-inspired junk science you have been spouting, you would learn that there is no scientific basis to the claims that global warming is caused by human activities. You would also learn that the warming we are experencing is nothing more than a natural recovery from the 500-year Little Ice Age that ended 100+ years ago, you would also learn that both the Greenland ice cap and the Antarctic ice cap are actually thickening, and you would learn that there is no evidence that there has been any rise in sea levels.

You could well be right, I'm willing to accept that but as yet the only challenges to the status quo on global warming that I have read have been from homegrown websites like http://www.john-daly.com/ or http://www.creationism.org (http://www.creationism.org/) and their ilk. Do you have any links to 'real' scientific journals that falsify the claims and have the falsification validated by peer review?

[sunsettommy]

Okay you want a better link with pretty pictures and meaningless graphs. will this one do?
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsSeaLevelRiseIndex.html

Personally Global warming isn't something I care about, but the idea that the U.N. is using global warming as an excuse to take over the world is too much of stretch for me. I think I'll stick to scientific journals for my info on the situation.

__________________________________________________ __________

I do NOT have that worry.I just from experience in READING their IPCC climate reports,see their claims be so weak to be making radical changes in energy policies,of the world.The Kyoto Treaty is scientifcally poor.

The U.N. does in OTHER ways,try to exert their SOCIALIST influence on America.

Meanwhile a better link to read.

[sunsettommy]

You could well be right, I'm willing to accept that but as yet the only challenges to the status quo on global warming that I have read have been from homegrown websites like http://www.john-daly.com/ or http://www.creationism.org (http://www.creationism.org/) and their ilk. Do you have any links to 'real' scientific journals that falsify the claims and have the falsification validated by peer review?

__________________________________________________ ________

LOL, it is obvious that you pay no attention to the SOURCES john-daly.com refers to,then as I have already pointed out to you,he has a LINKS list where there are those who believe in the CO2 Global Warming idea,listed.

Meanwhile here is a scientific organization,that draws SOELLY from published science papers:

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/Template/MainPage.jsp?MerchantCode=CO2ScienceB2C&Page=Index

Then we have this one from Ross McKitrick,who along with a colleage,blew away,Mann's "Hockey Stick" lies and distortion,that the U.N.'s IPCC swallowed up UNCRITICALLY,despite the dearth of the raw data,that normally comes with a scientific paper.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/ross.html

Here is another:

http://www.marshall.org/

[sunsettommy]

Then we have a Professor in Meterology at MIT,who as a scientist does not accept the IPCC claims.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

Excerpt:

As most scientists concerned with climate, I was eager to stay out of what seemed like a public circus. But in the summer of 1988 Lester Lave, a professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University, wrote to me about being dismissed from a Senate hearing for suggesting that the issue of global warming was scientifically controversial. I assured him that the issue was not only controversial but also unlikely. In the winter of 1989 Reginald Newell, a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, lost National Science Foundation funding for data analyses that were failing to show net warming over the past century. Reviewers suggested that his results were dangerous to humanity. In the spring of 1989 I was an invited participant at a global warming symposium at Tufts University. I was the only scientist among a panel of environmentalists. There were strident calls for immediate action and ample expressions of impatience with science. Claudine Schneider, then a congressman from Rhode Island, acknowledged that "scientists may disagree, but we can hear Mother Earth, and she is crying.'' It seemed clear to me that a very dangerous situation was arising, and the danger was not of "global warming'' itself.

In the spring of 1989 I prepared a critique of global warming, which I submitted to Science, a magazine of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The paper was rejected without review as being of no interest to the readership. I then submitted the paper to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, where it was accepted after review, rereviewed, and reaccepted--an unusual procedure to say the least. In the meantime, the paper was attacked in Science before it had even been published. The paper circulated for about six months as samizdat. It was delivered at a Humboldt conference at M.I.T. and reprinted in the Frankfurter Allgemeine.

In the meantime, the global warming circus was in full swing. Meetings were going on nonstop. One of the more striking of those meetings was hosted in the summer of 1989 by Robert Redford at his ranch in Sundance, Utah. Redford proclaimed that it was time to stop research and begin acting. I suppose that that was a reasonable suggestion for an actor to make, but it is also indicative of the overall attitude toward science. Barbara Streisand personally undertook to support the research of Michael Oppenheimer at the Environmental Defense Fund, although he is primarily an advocate and not a climatologist. Meryl Streep made an appeal on public television to stop warming. A bill was even prepared to guarantee Americans a stable climate.

By the fall of 1989 some media were becoming aware that there was controversy (Forbes and Reader's Digest were notable in that regard). Cries followed from environmentalists that skeptics were receiving excessive exposure. The publication of my paper was followed by a determined effort on the part of the editor of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Richard Hallgren, to solicit rebuttals. Such articles were prepared by Stephen Schneider and Will Kellogg, a minor scientific administrator for the past thirty years, and those articles were followed by an active correspondence mostly supportive of the skeptical spectrum of views. Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). On the whole, the debate within the meteorological community has been relatively healthy and, in this regard, unusual.

Outside the world of meteorology, Greenpeace's Jeremy Legett, a geologist by training, published a book attacking critics of warming---especially me. George Mitchell, Senate majority leader and father of a prominent environmental activist, also published a book urging acceptance of the warming problem (World on Fire: Saving an Endangered Earth). Sen. Gore recently published a book (Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit). Those are just a few examples of the rapidly growing publications on warming. Rarely has such meager science provoked such an outpouring of popularization by individuals who do not understand the subject in the first place.

__________________________________________________ ________

Shall I go on Mr. Whipple?

[Naturalized-Texan]

whipple: You asked for it:

NASA Satellite Data (http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html)

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm)

ABSTRACT

A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.

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

Sea Levels And Storms

The computer climate models do not make any reliable predictions whatever concerning global flooding, storm variability, and other catastrophes that have come to be a part of the popular definition of ''global warming.'' (See Chapter 6, section 6-5 of reference 14.) Yet several scenarios of impending global catastrophe have arisen separately. One of these hypothesizes that rising sea levels will flood large areas of coastal land. Figure 15 shows satellite measurements of global sea level between 1993 and 1997 (43). The reported current global rate of rise amounts to only about plus 2 mm per year, or plus 8 inches per century, and even this estimate is probably high (43). The trends in rise and fall of sea level in various regions have a wide range of about 100 mm per year with most of the globe showing downward trends (43).

http://www.oism.org/pproject/fig15.gif

Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: 20th Century Climate Not So Hot (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/press/pr0310.html)

Cambridge, MA - A review of more than 200 climate studies led by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1000 years. The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American continents. While 20th century temperatures are much higher than in the Little Ice Age period, many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century.

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

Soon and his colleagues concluded that the 20th century is neither the warmest century over the last 1000 years, nor is it the most extreme.

National Academy of Sciences Climate Change Report (http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange/) Chapter 5:

THE EFFECT OF HUMAN ACTIVITIES

Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established. The fact that the magnitude of the observed warming is large in comparison to natural variability as simulated in climate models is suggestive of such a linkage, but it does not constitute proof of one because the model simulations could be deficient in natural variability on the decadal to century time scale. The warming that has been estimated to have occurred in response to the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is somewhat greater than the observed warming. At least some of this excess warming has been offset by the cooling effect of sulfate aerosols, and in any case one should not necessarily expect an exact correspondence because of the presence of natural variability.

The cooling trend in the stratosphere, evident in radiosonde data since the 1960s and confirmed by satellite observations starting in 1979, is so pronounced as to be difficult to explain on the basis of natural variability alone. This trend is believed to be partially a result of stratospheric ozone depletion and partially a result of the buildup of greenhouse gases, which warm the atmosphere at low levels but cool it at high levels. The circulation of the stratosphere has responded to the radiatively induced temperature changes in such a way as to concentrate the effects in high latitudes of the winter hemisphere, where cooling of up to 5°C (9°F) has been observed.

There have been significant changes in the atmospheric circulation during the past several decades: e.g., the transition in climate over the Pacific sector around 1976 that was analogous in some respects to a transition toward more "El Niño-like" conditions over much of the Pacific, and the more gradual strengthening of the wintertime westerlies over subpolar latitudes of both Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Such features bear watching, lest they be early indications of changes in the natural modes of atmospheric variability triggered by human induced climate change. To place them in context, however, it is worth keeping in mind that there were events of comparable significance earlier in the record, such as the 1930s dust bowl.

[sunsettommy]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/2004/06-14-2004/figure3.jpg
Source: See Figure 1
Figure 3: The Northern Hemisphere surface temperature (white line, based on 11-year moving average) closely tracks the solar intensity of the sun (yellow line), as measured by the solar magnetic cycle length; the shorter the magnetic cycle length, the more active, and hence brighter, the sun. This Figure makes quite clear that the ordinary warming and cooling cycle of the sun is the principal controller of the Earth’s temperature.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/06-14-2004/science.htm

The REAL CAUSE of WARMING and COOLING,the SUN!

This has been known for a long time,but pointedly ignored by the Environmentalists.They often even AVOID discussing the Suns dominant role on the Earths Greenhouse effect.

[DoctorDoom]

Number-crunching time. Insolation at the top of the atmosphere is 1400 watts per square meter. Running the numbers, we find that the solar energy applied to Earth at that altitude is about 178,905,538.86 gigawatts, or the equivalent of the power output of 178,905,539 1000-megawatt power plants. And the ecowackos tell us that using gas-powered lawn mowers has a significant effect on Earth's temperature.

Pull the other one!

[Naturalized-Texan]

Solar Variations: The Maunder Minimum (http://reason.com/9810/fe.baliunas.shtml)

Reason: You've been writing some papers suggesting that terrestrial climate today may be affected by solar variations. In fact you've suggested that some of the warming that people have attributed to burning fossil fuels may actually be the result of natural fluctuation. How did you get involved in that?

[Astronomer Sallie] Baliunas: Nearly 15 years ago, I started hearing that there now were models--imulations--of the earth's climate system that could be projected 100 years into the future. I was curious and thought, "Wow, that's a significant leap in meteorology and climatology. I want to learn about that." So I began looking at the models and how they can make predictions so far in advance. I also began to look at climate simulations run on computers and ask the question, What is the natural level of climate change? What is the influence of the sun?

The reason for asking how the sun might influence it is that there is lots of direct evidence that the sun has an impact. For example, the sun changes in its brightness [an average of] every 11 years with the magnetic cycle. We know that from recent satellite measurements. But going back further in time, we know the sun changes every few centuries. During the 17th century, which was an unusually cold period on Earth, the sun had very little magnetic activity for about a century--the Maunder Minimum, coincident with the Little Ice Age.

Reason: What is the Maunder Minimum?

Baliunas: The Maunder Minimum is this episode in the 17th century where the 11-year cycle was suppressed--was very quiet--and the sun dropped to very low levels of magnetism.

Reason: The 11-year cycle disappeared?

Baliunas: Almost. There were certainly long months of time, and even a decade toward the end of the 17th century, when sighting a sunspot was very rare.

Reason: Is there any theory for what caused that?

Baliunas: That's the hot question. We have to explain the 11-year cycle in the first place. There's a crude picture that says we know the sun's magnetism changes with time because of the way the sun spins and the way the outer layer rolls with convection. Beyond that, it's not a good theory. Making an 11-year repeating cycle is difficult in most theories. Making it disappear every few centuries is even more difficult.

Reason: How do you know magnetic records of the sun from the 17th century?

Baliunas: The records of sunspots go back to 1609, to Galileo's day, and that's almost long enough to see this episode. But we have some unbiased records: The sun has a wind that carries the magnetic field toward the earth and acts as a shield. There's a rain of cosmic rays coming from deep space. When the sun's magnetic field is strong, these cosmic rays tend to be deflected. When the magnetic field is weak, these cosmic rays penetrate the upper atmosphere of the earth. When the cosmic rays come in, they make radiocarbon in the upper atmosphere, and that carbon-14 ends up in carbon dioxide molecules. It's breathed in by a tree and put in its tree ring, so the amount of carbon-14 over time in tree rings tells you what the sun has been doing in the past. Those records trace the sun back about 10,000 years. So we know the ups and downs of the sun's magnetism for the last 10,000 years or so.

After looking at this, I began to ask, How well do the climate simulations handle this relatively new knowledge about the sun? And the answer is, not very well. We don't know the mechanism for change in the sun very well. We don't know the response of the earth to such changes. So I thought, How do you make predictions 100 years in the future if you don't even know what all the sources of change are?

{Much more at the link above.}

[DesertFox]

"How do you make predictions 100 years in the future if you don't even know what all the sources of change are?"

If you're a conservative, you don't. If you're a liberal, you make them up and shriek hysterically about motives and "isms" when anyone points out your lies.

[sunsettommy]

Solar Variations: The Maunder Minimum (http://reason.com/9810/fe.baliunas.shtml)

Reason: You've been writing some papers suggesting that terrestrial climate today may be affected by solar variations. In fact you've suggested that some of the warming that people have attributed to burning fossil fuels may actually be the result of natural fluctuation. How did you get involved in that?

[Astronomer Sallie] Baliunas: Nearly 15 years ago, I started hearing that there now were models--imulations--of the earth's climate system that could be projected 100 years into the future. I was curious and thought, "Wow, that's a significant leap in meteorology and climatology. I want to learn about that." So I began looking at the models and how they can make predictions so far in advance. I also began to look at climate simulations run on computers and ask the question, What is the natural level of climate change? What is the influence of the sun?

The reason for asking how the sun might influence it is that there is lots of direct evidence that the sun has an impact. For example, the sun changes in its brightness [an average of] every 11 years with the magnetic cycle. We know that from recent satellite measurements. But going back further in time, we know the sun changes every few centuries. During the 17th century, which was an unusually cold period on Earth, the sun had very little magnetic activity for about a century--the Maunder Minimum, coincident with the Little Ice Age.

Reason: What is the Maunder Minimum?

Baliunas: The Maunder Minimum is this episode in the 17th century where the 11-year cycle was suppressed--was very quiet--and the sun dropped to very low levels of magnetism.

Reason: The 11-year cycle disappeared?

Baliunas: Almost. There were certainly long months of time, and even a decade toward the end of the 17th century, when sighting a sunspot was very rare.

Reason: Is there any theory for what caused that?

Baliunas: That's the hot question. We have to explain the 11-year cycle in the first place. There's a crude picture that says we know the sun's magnetism changes with time because of the way the sun spins and the way the outer layer rolls with convection. Beyond that, it's not a good theory. Making an 11-year repeating cycle is difficult in most theories. Making it disappear every few centuries is even more difficult.

Reason: How do you know magnetic records of the sun from the 17th century?

Baliunas: The records of sunspots go back to 1609, to Galileo's day, and that's almost long enough to see this episode. But we have some unbiased records: The sun has a wind that carries the magnetic field toward the earth and acts as a shield. There's a rain of cosmic rays coming from deep space. When the sun's magnetic field is strong, these cosmic rays tend to be deflected. When the magnetic field is weak, these cosmic rays penetrate the upper atmosphere of the earth. When the cosmic rays come in, they make radiocarbon in the upper atmosphere, and that carbon-14 ends up in carbon dioxide molecules. It's breathed in by a tree and put in its tree ring, so the amount of carbon-14 over time in tree rings tells you what the sun has been doing in the past. Those records trace the sun back about 10,000 years. So we know the ups and downs of the sun's magnetism for the last 10,000 years or so.

After looking at this, I began to ask, How well do the climate simulations handle this relatively new knowledge about the sun? And the answer is, not very well. We don't know the mechanism for change in the sun very well. We don't know the response of the earth to such changes. So I thought, How do you make predictions 100 years in the future if you don't even know what all the sources of change are?

{Much more at the link above.}

The relationship was well known in climate research circles, long before Sally came along. It was discussed decades ago. Sally is reviving the concept because of her astronomy background telling her of the solar cycle affecting the earth.

It is interesting that the IPCC and other chicken little organizations pointedly ignore what is so obvious to us nonscientists! That the Sun is the #1 creator of the Greenhouse Effect on earth.

[DoctorDoom]

If anyone has some global warming to spare, send it up this way. As I type this on March 9, it is about -2° with a windchill of -20° or so. 'Tain't nacheral, I tell ya.

[whipple]

Doesn't your Doom-suit have AC?

[DoctorDoom]

AC, yes. Central heating, no.

[Faithful_Servant]

If anyone has some global warming to spare, send it up this way. As I type this on March 9, it is about -2° with a windchill of -20° or so. 'Tain't nacheral, I tell ya.
Doc, you need to head to my neck of the woods. Normally, we're seeing highs around the 40-50 range, but for the last week we've been seeing temps in the 70s.
It's GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!
<runs in circles, shrieking and crying>
<runs into a wall>
<blames the wall on the PA>
<contacts the ACLU and Greenpeace to sue the entire population of the US>

[whipple]

Yea same here.

It was snowing last week but now its really mild. I'd say the ice caps have melted already :D

[sunsettommy]

Yea same here.

It was snowing last week but now its really mild. I'd say the ice caps have melted already :D

I see that you have not provided a cogent response,to my postings in this thread.

Could it be because you know by now that Global Warming mantra is way overdone?

With 99% of the worlds Glaciers GROWING or maintaining stability,your silly attempt to humor fails badly.Remember Greenland and Antartica have 99% of the worlds Ice,so even if the few areas in the Mountains and even in the Artic ocean all MELT,the Sea Levels will change little.