Nobel winning climate "expert" discredited.

[Ugmo]

Why do global warming deniers always use the word "arrogant"? Seems to me like it's actually arrogant to assume we can do whatever we want and it WON'T affect the climate.

Anyway dude, refer to page 1 for the pictures of the melting glaciers, which cannot be denied.

[bane]

Anyway dude, refer to page 1 for the pictures of the melting glaciers, which cannot be denied.

They'll just go with their stock answer of "It's natural. It's arrogant to assume that we've had anything to do with it or that we can do anything about it." Blah, blah, fucking blah. Fucking oil company sheep.

[VinnieKulick]

Why do global warming deniers always use the word "arrogant"? Seems to me like it's actually arrogant to assume we can do whatever we want and it WON'T affect the climate.

Anyway dude, refer to page 1 for the pictures of the melting glaciers, which cannot be denied.

I can take a photo of my front yard in December and then one in june. One would have snow, one wouldn't.

And, refer to the FACT that the earth has gotten LESS THAN ONE DEGREE warmer over the past 130 years.

And, people use the word ARROGANT because that's how the people on the front lines of global warming act.

[Ugmo]

I can take a photo of my front yard in December and then one in june. One would have snow, one wouldn't.

And, refer to the FACT that the earth has gotten LESS THAN ONE DEGREE warmer over the past 130 years.

And, people use the word ARROGANT because that's how the people on the front lines of global warming act.

Dude, those are glaciers, not just regular winter snow. Do you have that little understanding of this issue, or are you just determined to deny anything to do with glacial retreat? And that isn't arrogant?

[VinnieKulick]

"glaciers" in montana often melt when summer rolls around.

In fact, the DEFINITION of Glacier is:
A huge mass of ice slowly flowing over a land mass, formed from compacted snow in an area where snow accumulation exceeds melting and sublimation.


Could it be that there is LESS SNOWFALL, therefore the snow that is left there would logically be more apt to thaw when the warm season rolls around.

Or, did you not know that some places with snow, also have nice warm summers?

And again, for the third or forth time, LESS THAN A DEGREE DIFFERENCE IN TEMPERATURE IN 130 YEARS.

[bane]

According to your own post, it's a degree and a half, not "less than a degree", but who's counting right? It sounds like nothing, but it only took a 2-4 degree difference to cause the Little Ice Age.

[vlad]

Vinnie, that degree you keep MENTIONING is Celsius, in Farehenheit, it is about a degree and half. Just saying. In general, the last three decades have seen a rise of .8 a decade.

Also, the hottest years of the last 130 years have been in order of hotness...

2005
2009
2007
2002
1998
2003
2006
2004
2001
2008

In case you miss the trend...the 00's were the hottest decade.

Though wherever you learned to push the ONE DEGREE IN 130 YEARS!!!!..that's a very clever way to frame it. But just not telling the whole story.

Oh, and the glaciers....clearly you don't spend a lot of time around them (heh, I have, btw,,,in western Alaska)....they don't retreat and advance that drastically between summer and winter...that's just silliness...

[VinnieKulick]

According to your own post, it's a degree and a half, not "less than a degree", but who's counting right? It sounds like nothing, but it only took a 2-4 degree difference to cause the Little Ice Age.

Ugmo lives in Europe, no? I've been talking to him about this mainly.
So, I used celcius. Either way, a degree and a half over 130 years is not so drastic.

And the last decade has been the hottest ever. But, if the logic was we keep getting warmer, then the incline would be steady, and not up and down between years. If the world started trending down by .1 degrees (C or F) for two years, would you be screaming how the earth is cooling and we're heading for an ice age?


A short 500 years ago, we had a major cooling, and 1000 years ago, we were MUCH warmer than we are now.
What's missing from the equations for each? The lack of industrialized nations.

If the world's been doing this for millions of years, why is it man's fault now?


And, why was the cooling in the 40s-70 not a panic?

Not only that, but did it ever occur to anybody that the further along we get, the more accurate the temperatures are? that we might be about the same as 50-100 years ago?

[VinnieKulick]

Loehle, C. 2007. A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies. Energy and Environment, 18, 1049-1058.

Loehle, C. and J.H. McCulloch. 2008. Correction to: A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies. Energy and Environment, 19, 93-100.

Google these for the long versions of the reports.

You'll find that the earth's temps bounce around all the time, throughout history, with or without man's intervention.

[Ugmo]

No it hasn't. It's been in a cooling trend overall and has nothing to do with CO2 levels at all.

Which is it? Where are you getting your info from, because a quick search turns up countless reputable sources claiming that this decade was the hottest on record.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Decade ... id=9283733

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE4BT49G20081230

What source do you have that trumps NASA?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/scien ... rming.html

[Ugmo]

Something is screwy here dude, because every single reliable source on google says the past decade was the hottest on record by a wide margin. And your graph doesn't link to the IPCC. Did you get if from the IPCC site, and if so can you give a link?

[chickenona]

Warmer temperatures aren't always the main indicator of global warming either. The uncharacteristic cold in England, for example, would be an indicator that the gulf stream in the Atlantic Ocean had changed course and function, which itself is an indicator of rising global temperatures and increased glacial melt.

[Ugmo]

Warmer temperatures aren't always the main indicator of global warming either. The uncharacteristic cold in England, for example, would be an indicator that the gulf stream in the Atlantic Ocean had changed course and function, which itself is an indicator of rising global temperatures and increased glacial melt.

I'm pretty sure that's not the reason England and the rest of Europe is currently experiencing cold weather. The cold weather is because it's winter, and we're being affected by a prolongued period of artic air. If the gulf stream in the Atlantic had changed course we would know it, as the effects would be catastrophic rather than inconvenient.

[chickenona]

You're probably right about that, the last time there was a serious disruption of the gulf stream was during the Ice Age I think.

However, the weather here in Vermont has basically been like England this winter - very damp, but nowhere near as cold as we're used to seeing. This has been the warmest winter I've seen in a while.

[bane]

If the gulf stream in the Atlantic had changed course we would know it, as the effects would be catastrophic rather than inconvenient.

It happened in the early 70's. It wasn't catastrophic because it didn't last long, but a big chunk of ice broke off and melted in the North Atlantic in the early 70's that caused interference with circulation. It was small enough that it dissipated after a few years, but Europe suffered a few very cold winters as a result. What we're looking at now is potentially the same thing on a much larger scale.

[Ugmo]

Official government measurements show that the world's temperature has cooled a bit since reaching its most recent peak in 1998.

I thought this might be what you meant, and I found the reason for it earlier today:

The latest plot by some global warming deniers is to push a bogus
'theory' that the earth is actually cooling, instead of warming. But
the AP's Seth Borenstein took the hot air out of their sails. In his
recent story, Borenstein explains that the AP gave temperature data
to four independent statisticians to see what kinds of trends they
found. "The experts found no true temperature declines over time," he
reports.

Instead, they found "a distinct decades-long upward
trend," which of course has been backed up by the world's leading
scientists for years.

---------

That's the problem, some of the statisticians said.

Grego produced three charts to show how choosing a starting date can
alter perceptions. Using the skeptics' satellite data beginning in
1998, there is a "mild downward trend," he said. But doing that is
"deceptive."

The trend disappears if the analysis starts in 1997. And it trends
upward if you begin in 1999, he said.

http://www.mail-archive.com/sustainable ... 74770.html

In other words, compared to 1998 there is a downward trend, as 1998 was the warmest year on record. But compared to 97, 99 and any other year, there is an upward trend. That's basically global warming deniers looking at the numbers from a very narrow perspective so that they can claim there has been cooling, when that isn't the case. All the major climate research organization say the past decade was the hottest on record, and that's the bottom line.

[Ugmo]

Global temperatures may be falling for up to the next 30 years as well according to your U.N. climatologist. Nice try.

My U.N. climatologist?

Didn't we go over this the other day? Even if that guy is right, he still wasn't questioning man-made global warming. He said oceanic patterns could delay the process for up to 30 years - after that it's back to the unchecked warming.

[absolutely fabulous]

Alpine glaciers are demonstrably shrinking:

[/quote]

2010

http://www.worldofstock.com/closeups/TAU2012.php




2007

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... lacier.JPG

just saying.

[Ugmo]

just saying.

I don't get your point. No one said they were gone completely, so posting a picture of the glaciers from a different angle showing that part of them are still there isn't relevant. It's the comparison that's relevant.

[VinnieKulick]

Like I said before, you can take photos at various times of the year, and get different 'evidence' of how bad it is. And, I use "bad" with a whole lot of sarcasm.

[bane]

Like I said before, you can take photos at various times of the year, and get different 'evidence' of how bad it is. And, I use "bad" with a whole lot of sarcasm.

I wonder what kind of excuse you'll come up with for the opening of the Northwest Passage?

[lerxstcat]

Like I said before, you can take photos at various times of the year, and get different 'evidence' of how bad it is. And, I use "bad" with a whole lot of sarcasm.

I wonder what kind of excuse you'll come up with for the opening of the Northwest Passage?

Oh, that'll be GREAT for shipping! No more pesky Panama Canal creating a bottleneck!

[vlad]

Like I said before, you can take photos at various times of the year, and get different 'evidence' of how bad it is. And, I use "bad" with a whole lot of sarcasm.

Then whip 'em out Vinnie....show us the massive glacial surges that are seasonal. You seem to have this whole thing figured out....so share!

[VinnieKulick]

If we are using photos of "proof" that the world is warming and we're all going to drown, you can't just use TWO photos, with unknown dates that they were taken, and say "here's your proof". Especially when somebody else posts photos that shows plenty of snow and ice where the other photos had green grass and trees.

And, for the last time:

I AM IN NO WAY SAYING THAT THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE HAS NOT RISEN. I AM SAYING THAT MAN CANNOT BE 100% RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.

NOBODY HAS EXPLAINED HOW THE ICE AGE ENDED, WITHOUT A SINGLE HUMAN ON THE PLANET (NOT TO MENTION THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THERE WAS MORE CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE DURING THE ICE AGE, THAN THERE IS NOW)

MAN ISN'T MAKING THIS HAPPEN, AND EVEN IF WE WERE, EVERYBODY HAVING ELECTRIC CARS WON'T CHANGE IT.

[vlad]

If we are using photos of "proof" that the world is warming and we're all going to drown, you can't just use TWO photos, with unknown dates that they were taken, and say "here's your proof". Especially when somebody else posts photos that shows plenty of snow and ice where the other photos had green grass and trees.

And, for the last time:

I AM IN NO WAY SAYING THAT THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE HAS NOT RISEN. I AM SAYING THAT MAN CANNOT BE 100% RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.

NOBODY HAS EXPLAINED HOW THE ICE AGE ENDED, WITHOUT A SINGLE HUMAN ON THE PLANET (NOT TO MENTION THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THERE WAS MORE CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE DURING THE ICE AGE, THAN THERE IS NOW)

MAN ISN'T MAKING THIS HAPPEN, AND EVEN IF WE WERE, EVERYBODY HAVING ELECTRIC CARS WON'T CHANGE IT.

Dude you are the one who catagorically states all this sciency stuff and when asked to provide some evidence you resort to CAPS, BOLD ITALIC CAPS, no less. It shouldn't be hard at all to find a verifiable link that shows the seasonal advance and retreat of a specific glacier. Really.

Are you saying that the pics and dates provided are made up?

And just a heads up...there certainly were humans on the planet when the ice age ended. You might want to read up on that...we certainly were around some 12K years ago, give or take, though the Younger Dryas might have put a bit of a dent in us...note: I am not saying that they caused the "end of the ice age"...

And show us the evidence that there was more CO2 during the ice ages (as in which one? I like the Karoo period, just because the name rocks, but I assume you are talking about the ice "ages" of the Quaternary) than in the warming periods in between...

[absolutely fabulous]

just saying.

I don't get your point. No one said they were gone completely, so posting a picture of the glaciers from a different angle showing that part of them are still there isn't relevant. It's the comparison that's relevant.

i tried my best to find pics that showed the same area.
sure, they were different angles, but that doesn't dispute the 2004 pictures, which shows that they are almost completely gone, compared to the 2007/10 pics,
it's relative on the comparision pictures, right?
why haven't they updated pictures on these areas of concern since 2004?


the data about what is the warmest years, etc. we now have to take that on confidence from eau, who were the basis of those facts, yet have destroyed the information that it's based on.
what scientific community is so careless of the information that all they've worked on allows that to be mishandled?

i wonder how reputable they are, now.
i hardly see any ipcc report use them as a reference.

[bane]

Your Momma- I am convinced. You are 1000% an oil company brainwashed idiot. I'm, sorry. I'm usually pretty open minded here and willing to let everyone speak their peace, but you sir, are a motherfucking brainwashed moron.

[lerxstcat]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 999051.ece

January 23, 2010

UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report
Jeremy Page, South Asia Correspondent

(Bob Strong/Reuters)
Rajenda Pachauri

The Indian head of the UN climate change panel defended his position yesterday even as further errors were identified in the panel's assessment of Himalayan glaciers.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri dismissed calls for him to resign over the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’s retraction of a prediction that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.
But he admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section of the report...

Do you realize that the Himalayas are almost 10,000 feet higher than any other mountain range on the planet? I'd venture to say that if all the himalayan glaciers disappeared the whole planet would be a fucking desert.

The fact that he changed his previous view to state that THOSE particular glaciers might NOT disappear, does NOT mean that it's not a crisis in other mountain regions of the planet. Glaciers are part of thew system of ice and snow accumuation whose seasonal variations, as in melt and runoff, provide fresh water for the rivers of the planet. It fucks up the whole ecosystem for everything downhill, which is basically EVERYTHING on the whole planet.

[VinnieKulick]

Dude you are the one who catagorically states all this sciency stuff and when asked to provide some evidence you resort to CAPS, BOLD ITALIC CAPS, no less. It shouldn't be hard at all to find a verifiable link that shows the seasonal advance and retreat of a specific glacier. Really.

Yes, I am saying that temperatures have always fluctuated on the planet. Finding evidence of this ISN'T difficult, you are right.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... rature.png

Are you saying that the pics and dates provided are made up?

No, I am saying the photos that Ugmo put on here, have no date on them, just a year. So, there is going to be a difference between January and July's level of ice/snow even at higher altitudes.

And just a heads up...there certainly were humans on the planet when the ice age ended. You might want to read up on that...we certainly were around some 12K years ago, give or take, though the Younger Dryas might have put a bit of a dent in us...note: I am not saying that they caused the "end of the ice age"..

Okay, i'll be more precise, there was no modern man, with no industrialization. Yet the carbon levels were as high or higher than they are now during the ice age.

And show us the evidence that there was more CO2 during the ice ages (as in which one? I like the Karoo period, just because the name rocks, but I assume you are talking about the ice "ages" of the Quaternary) than in the warming periods in between...

The graph above does that.