On Friday’s CBS "Early Show," co-host Maggie Rodriguez teased an upcoming interview with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair about global warming: "Also ahead this morning, we'll talk about a disturbing new report from some scientists in Colorado who say that there is the very real possibility that for the first time we will see the ice in the North Pole melt away completely during the summer."
Rodriguez elaborated as she later introduced the segment:
There are disturbing reports out this morning about the situation in the North Pole. Scientists are saying that by this summer there may be no ice on the North Pole at all, and that would be a first. Although the scientists also say there would be no significant short-term consequence to this, to not have ice in the North Pole year-round for the first time in history is symbolic of the growing threat of global warming.
While Rodriguez suggested the potential ice melting as a dramatic event, according to an article on National Geographic’s website: "The melt would be mostly symbolic – thicker ice, pushed against the Canadian continental shelf by weather and Earth's rotation, would still survive the summer. Recent models suggest that the Arctic won't see its first completely ice-free summer until somewhere between 2013 and 2030."
Rodriguez asked Blair about the report and he responded: " I think it just demonstrates how necessary it is to take action on climate change, how urgent it is that we get a global comprehensive deal...that is realistic for sure, but radical enough to stop the climate changing and prevent further damage to the environment."
Rodriguez wondered why Blair did not do more to pressure President Bush on global warming: "This is obviously important to you. Why didn't we hear you talk more about it when you were Prime Minister? When you had the ear of our Republican president?"
Later, Rodriguez even attempted to get Blair to take sides in the presidential race: "Here in the United States, which of our two presidential candidates, Senator Obama or Senator McCain, do you think is better equipped to take action on climate change?" Blair diplomatically replied: "Well, first of all, I'm not getting into your presidential campaign, that's a matter for America not for me. But actually, both of the candidates have got a strong record on this issue."
At the end of the segment, Rodriguez turned to weather man Dave Price who was on location in Alaska and declared: "...glaciers, environmentalism, a big issue here. There are 29,000 square miles of glacier. That's 5% of this state. And 100,000 glaciers in Alaska, 60 are within 50 miles of Anchorage, where we are this morning..."
Here is the full transcript of the segment:
The Early Show
06/27/08
7:02AM TEASER
MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Also ahead this morning, we'll talk about a disturbing new report from some scientists in Colorado who say that there is the very real possibility that for the first time we will see the ice in the North Pole melt away completely during the summer. Ahead I'll be speaking with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who's in Japan tackling the topic of global warming.
The Early Show
06/27/08
7:08AM
MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: There are disturbing reports out this morning about the situation in the North Pole. Scientists are saying that by this summer there may be no ice on the North Pole at all, and that would be a first. Although the scientists also say there would be no significant short-term consequence to this, to not have ice in the North Pole year-round for the first time in history is symbolic of the growing threat of global warming. I'm joined now by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who's in Tokyo tackling global warming with world leaders. Good morning to you, Mr. Blair.
TONY BLAIR: Good morning.
RODRIGUEZ: There's a report out this morning that the North Pole may be briefly ice-free by September. Can I get your take on that?
BLAIR: I think it just demonstrates how necessary it is to take action on climate change, how urgent it is that we get a global comprehensive deal, one that has America on the one side, China and other developing countries on the other side in it and that we take action that is realistic for sure, but radical enough to stop the climate changing and prevent further damage to the environment.
RODRIGUEZ: This is obviously important to you. Why didn't we hear you talk more about it when you were Prime Minister? When you had the ear of our Republican president?
BLAIR: I did, actually. I mean, the reason why this process is happening here in Japan is because when I was in office and was the president of the G-8 for that year of 2005, we actually put climate change on the agenda and for the first time established a forum in which not just America and the European countries and Japan could talk about climate change, but also China, and India, and Brazil, and South Africa, Mexico. So it's really arising out of that initiative. And we're seeing the meeting today. And, you know, you're right in saying it's tough to take action. And we've got to make sure that action's realistic. You know, we don't want to damage our economy. But I think all the evidence is that if we start to take these measures, actually the environment and the technology associated with it and cleaner technology, actually provides jobs and provides a boost to the economy.
RODRIGUEZ: Here in the United States, which of our two presidential candidates, Senator Obama or Senator McCain, do you think is better equipped to take action on climate change?
BLAIR: Well, first of all, I'm not getting into your presidential campaign, that's a matter for America not for me. But actually, both of the candidates have got a strong record on this issue. And I actually believe it's possible this year this administration will also agree to a global target. So, I think that the mood in America has shifted dramatically over the last few years. I think people now understand there is a problem and that the challenge is serious. But you know, as you say, the question is how to get the solution in place. And that requires a lot of pain staking and difficult and complex technical work, as well as political will.
RODRIGUEZ: Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Thank you for taking the time this morning.
BLAIR: Thank you.
RODRIGUEZ: Dave Price is on the road this morning. And it was a long trip. He's in Anchorage, Alaska. Dave, good morning.
DAVE PRICE: Good morning to you Maggie. Great crowd we have here celebrating the 50th anniversary of statehood here. It all began just a half century ago. We'll talk more about the history in just a little while. In the meantime, though, glaciers, environmentalism, a big issue here. There are 29,000 square miles of glacier. That's 5% of this state. And 100,000 glaciers in Alaska, 60 are within 50 miles of Anchorage, where we are this morning, right on the shores of Lake Hood.
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Comments Policy
I read an article this
June 27, 2008 - 11:42 ET by bassndudeI read an article this morning that said "For the first time in human history..." I mean, how in the world do they know that? Are there records from back 25,000 years ago? This "climate change" nonsense has got to go. I mean, how are you going to stop climate change? It has been changing from the beginning of the earth and will continue untill there is no earth left.
Its all clap trap!
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Human history = since 1979
June 27, 2008 - 11:49 ET by tropicalreportPolar orbiting satellites have only existed since 1979 to measure the ice coverage above the poles. Unprecedented and first time in human history mean in the last 30 years. Coincidentally, this is during the Carter administration, which many people tend to forget.
Except that we have ice
June 27, 2008 - 12:06 ET by cleverpigExcept that we have ice cores in Greenland that go back 200,000 years, so I don't see why we wouldn't be able to at least know whether it had been a possibility at any time in human history.
not the whole story
June 27, 2008 - 12:17 ET by wizardjrWhile indicative of general weather those Greenland/Iceland analogs will not give you the local story at the pole. As recently noted, undersea vulcanism coupled with various oceanic current oscillations can make the pole significantly warmer or colder than the islands.
Consider this though, the Arctic was once Tropical. Science fact.
I get that, which is why I
June 27, 2008 - 12:19 ET by cleverpigI get that, which is why I said you should be able to tell if it was a possibility, not necessarily whether or not it happened. Surely there is a minimum high temperature at which local weather conditions could cause melting at the pole.
"Surely there is a minimum
June 27, 2008 - 12:39 ET by NL207"Surely there is a minimum high temperature at which local weather conditions could cause melting at the pole."
There sure is. Some people call this the freezing point. It's about 0 degrees C, so I've been told.
No, it's way warmer than that,
June 27, 2008 - 13:48 ET by fonzie2178It's 32 degrees F.
J/K :-)
Actually, we have ice cores
June 27, 2008 - 12:18 ET by NL207Actually, we have ice cores that go back further.
Odd .... these cores show the planet hs been up to 5 degrees K warmer than it is today, and there was still ice to form a layer in the ice core ... so what about these global warning alarmist claims the ice cap is about to melt and raise sea levels 23 feet? There couldn't be anything wrong with any of these predictions, could there?
Ice Cores
June 27, 2008 - 13:01 ET by tropicalreportIce cores are over land, like Greenland or Antarctica. There is no such thing over the North Pole which sits on the Arctic Ocean. This is sea ice -- meaning if it melts, it does not raise global sea-levels. The climate impacts are conjecture at this point since the ice-free areas will re-freeze in the autumn, just like it does every year.
You are obviously new here.
June 27, 2008 - 13:30 ET by NL207You are obviously new here.
wrong-o
June 27, 2008 - 13:31 ET by wizardjrthe 450,000 year ice core was over a huge undergroud lake, Lake Vostok in Antarctica.
http://en.wikipedia....
cleverpig, it has happned
June 27, 2008 - 12:18 ET by bassndudecleverpig, it has happned before. During the medieval warming period. As a matter of fact, it is written about as a matter of a shorter trade route.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
The shorter trade route was
June 27, 2008 - 12:23 ET by cleverpigThe shorter trade route was the opening of the NW passage, which does not include the north pole, as far as I understand. You could have gotten from ocean to ocean and still had ice at the pole, right?
As both the news story and NatGeo article stated, melting at the pole is not meaningful in and of itself. They actually think that even if it melts this year there will still be ice to the south-- it's just a matter of local weather conditions. It's a symbolic change because it is something none of the models had predicted happening for another 20 years at least.
Anyway, they are giving it a fifty-fifty chance of happening this year. It might not.
NW Passage was not opened
June 27, 2008 - 12:58 ET by bassndudeNW Passage was not opened untill 1903. Up untill that time such route was only a part of the tails of the sea. Stories of a shorter trade route by way of the passage were plentyful, but it was not untill 1903 that it was rediscovered. The ice melted. That was somewhat after the medieval period.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Exactly cleverpig.
June 27, 2008 - 15:28 ET by KarmaIt's a symbolic change because it is something none of the models had predicted happening for another 20 years at least.
What does this say about the reliabilty of their models?
That they are too
June 27, 2008 - 18:07 ET by cleverpigThat they are too conservative?
;)
Arctic housing boom.
June 28, 2008 - 10:25 ET by KarmaIf they are off by 20 years or more, isn't it then possible that their so-called "tipping point" has already passed and attempts to "re-change" our climate are futile? Shouldn't we instead be planning for the coming changes?
I never thought I'd see the day when cleverpig would think something is "too conservative". A liberal dose of humor is always refreshing. ;)
I try. I figure if I am
June 29, 2008 - 12:54 ET by cleverpigI try. I figure if I am going to come here and bother you with my contrary opinions all the time I should try a joke every now and then.
I think it is possible, but wouldn't you keep trying until you were sure you couldn't do anything?
Anyway, as I said, this will just be the pole melting, not an ice-free arctic basin, which is what everyone is really worried about. It will be a function of warming but also local weather patterns that will determine which ice will melt. If it's the stuff over the pole everyone will raise their eyebrows and give each other significant looks, but it still isn't the worst-case scenario.
The problem with spanning
June 27, 2008 - 12:21 ET by Dan The Man 2The problem with spanning 200K years is that it is hard to pinpoint events within lets say 400 years apart. The events such as the little ice age and the climate we now have would show up and the differnce betweeen them. But teh idea of 30 years or even the minute changes we have now would possibly not show up.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
That may be true. I really
June 27, 2008 - 12:25 ET by cleverpigThat may be true. I really have no idea how fine a dataset you can get out of ice cores. As I understand it is pretty much the best temperature record out there before satellites and such, so I assumed it was pretty good.
years-to-decades resolution
June 27, 2008 - 13:27 ET by Giles Winterbourne"...recent drillings date to the last interglacial, the Eemian
(135,000-115,000 years ago). .... the climatic history of the Northern hemisphere ice sheets is preserved with a years-to-decades resolution" ES&T
not exactly true. The ice
June 27, 2008 - 12:31 ET by NL207not exactly true.
The ice cores contain distinct layers, much like the rings of a tree .....
You are right, I was
June 27, 2008 - 12:45 ET by Dan The Man 2You are right, I was postualting without looking at the data. I guess I was trying to bring out a point that the minute differences in data like the AGW crowd has would not be reallt noticable, or it seems to me logically. And then we get the data fom teh rings having more vaiance the farther back in time we go. I am just bringing up possible holes, otherwise blowing smoke; maily because Im lazy.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
detailed record of climatic variations reaching more than
June 27, 2008 - 12:15 ET by Giles Winterbourne"A 2-mile-long (3.2-kilometer-long) ice core laboriously drilled out
of an Antarctic ice sheet shows that levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases
are higher now than at any time in the past 420,000 years."
"...detailed record of climatic variations reaching more than 100,000 years back in time" GRIP
"...recent
drillings date to the last interglacial, the Eemian
(135,000-115,000 years ago). .... the climatic history of the Northern hemisphere ice sheets is preserved with a years-to-decades resolution" ES&T
Or read Fixing Climate
' It has been changing from the beginning of the earth...' Yet the fact that we have been the agents of change, and the cycles of natural change work on a far different timescale means we shouldn't make efforts to counteract what is our fault? It is a false comparison between the natural cycles and Anthropogenic Global Warming or Climate Change.
Holy crap, 2 miles
June 27, 2008 - 12:29 ET by cleverpigHoly crap, 2 miles long?!
So that would mean every inch on that thing would be about 3 years.
I'll bet you could see anomalies on the time scale we're experiencing now.
"A 2-mile-long
June 27, 2008 - 12:29 ET by NL207"A 2-mile-long (3.2-kilometer-long) ice core laboriously drilled out
of an Antarctic ice sheet shows that levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases
are higher now than at any time in the past 420,000 years."
And the same ice core also shows it has been significantly warmer, on the order of 4-5 degrees K as well as much colder, than today during that same interval. Clearly, the concentration of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is not the primary driver in the climate system. You and the rest of these nut-cases who believe otherwise need to rethink your position.
Try broadening your
June 27, 2008 - 12:30 ET by bassndudeTry broadening your horizons...read outside your little gullible, eco nut realm.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
baloney
June 27, 2008 - 12:33 ET by wizardjrTake a look at the 450,000 year temperature graph.
http://commons.wikim...
You'll find that we are way below the peak temperatures of the last four inter-glacial periods and have plateaued. If temps got much higher 130,000 years ago, what kind of SUV's were they driving then?
This inter-glacial warming period is right on schedule and nothing to do with us. In addition if you look at the 12,000 year temperature graph:
http://commons.wikim...
you'll find that we've actually been going down in temperature for the last 8,000 years and that the local (in time) event is merely small interval oscillations about the trend line.
In the Begining... Man created Climate Change
June 27, 2008 - 12:46 ET by CobraMan"Yet the fact that we have been the agents of change"
Are you suggesting that Mankind has been around since the beginning and it is us who caused both the eight 'ice ages' and the interglacial warm-up between those ice ages? Get real!
BTW, I noticed that your Antarctic CO2 reference is limited to only 420,00 years yet the ice record extends to 740,000 years in the past. Why did this article neglect to mention that little fact?
"Secrets of the Earth's past climate locked in a three-kilometre long Antarctic ice core are revealed this week in the journal Nature. The core from Dome C, high on East Antarctica's plateau, contains snowfall from the last 740,000 years and is by far the oldest continuous climate record obtained from ice cores so far."
Link
That ice record also shows that the temperatures today are similar to those in the past 400,000 when mankind didn't know what oil was, let alone use it on a daily basis.
"The first results confirm that over the last 740,000 years the Earth experienced eight ice ages, when Earth's climate was much colder than today, and eight warmer periods (interglacials). In the last 400,000 years the warm periods have had a temperature similar to that of today. Before that time they were less warm, but lasted longer."
So, in the last 400,000 years, global mean temperatures were similar to those found today, and this occurred several times, yet CO2 concentrations are higher than any time during that same 400,000 year period as per your reference. Wouldn't that tend to negate the theory that CO2 is what is causing the rise in global mean temperatures? Wouldn’t that also rule out Humans as a cause of today’s warmer temperatures? So much for your “agents of change” theory.
"mankind didn't know what
June 27, 2008 - 12:54 ET by NL207"mankind didn't know what oil was, let alone use it on a daily basis"
Nonsense. Primitive Rednecks first discovered oil at the local tarpits where they coincidentally discovered, roasted and consumed the first roadkill! Well, we think they roasted it first, but maybe not ...
Road Kill Cafe?
June 27, 2008 - 12:59 ET by CobraManWouldn't that be a barbeque? Not that I would recommend crude oil as a dipping sauce, but to each their own...
"Yet the fact that we have
June 27, 2008 - 13:39 ET by Giles Winterbourne"Yet the fact that we have been the agents of change"add since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
'Why did this article neglect to mention that little fact?' Different icecores. Note, beside the date difference, the length of the core. The orig post questioned how we know there was ice at the pole. I linked to 3 articles showing data on how we know.
""What this says is we're going well beyond the bounds of natural
variation." Petit estimates that the rising greenhouse gas concentrations
contributed to about 50 percent of the post-ice age warming; he attributes the
remaining heat to periodic shifts in Earth's orbit that increase the amount of
sunlight warming the planet.
The natural rise in the gases was attributed to a variety of factors,
including changes in oceanic processing of C02, increased plankton activity and
the return of methane-producing swamps.
But the core also appears to call into question previous research suggesting
a 500- to 1,000-year lag time between the post-ice age temperature increase and
the CO2 increase.
Instead, the core suggests temperatures rose in step with rising C02 levels,
a finding of interest to scientists studying global warming." Scientists: Ice core sample attests to warming climate -cited previously
my bolding
GilesThe resolution of
June 27, 2008 - 14:40 ET by bassndudeGiles
The resolution of the vostok data is quite low, with each data point representing an average of some 1000 years. As pointed out by Monnin et al (2001):
"CO2 records from Vostok and Taylor Dome are thought to be the most accurate. However, the time resolution of these two records is too low to provide a history of CO2 changes that shows the detailed evolution of atmospheric CO2 over the last glacial termination."
In other words, your graph is nothing but a data point every 1000 years. No less. Not accurate enough to support present claims of the reason for climate change. After all, if we can go from inpending iceage, (70's), to burning up, (90's), inside of 20 years, what good is a data set that only shows every 1000 years to push you short term climate change theory? Much less that CO2 is the cause. The thing that I notice most about the your graph is that over the time period shown, the climate is constantly changing. Even without our influence.
How you can say:
"But the core also appears to call into question previous research suggesting a 500- to 1,000-year lag time between the post-ice age temperature increase and the CO2 increase."
Is beyond me, and dishonest. According to the Vostok and Taylor Dome researchers themselves, the data set was set at every 1000 years, and perhaps a little more. Climateark seems to be a bit misleading, to say the least. They tend to slip in their little lies when they can. That spells bias. They are pushing the global warming agenda with falsified data sets and lies.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
probably be wiser to cite examples
June 27, 2008 - 16:18 ET by Giles Winterbourne'..How you can say...':
The quote is from AP not me. If you want to compare, LATimes reprinted the article:
Otherwise, it would probably be wiser to cite examples for 'They tend to slip in their little lies when they can. That spells bias. They are pushing the global warming agenda with falsified data sets and lies. '
Also note that I cited two Arctic/Greenland cores with higher resolution.
If you are referring to the Nature (1990) graph, perhaps arguing that science would be better done at that site or with ES&T.
Note also in your link they discuss the ".uncertainty of the absolute time
scale for the ice is estimated to ±200 years back to 10 ky B.P..." my bold
But in any case, the issue was 'no proof there has always been ice'. So arguing the results of a particular dataset is off-topic and probably be taken to a science site.
Because your link in the
June 27, 2008 - 16:36 ET by bassndudeBecause your link in the post I responded to refers to to the link:
"A 2-mile-long (3.2-kilometer-long) ice core laboriously drilled out of an Antarctic ice sheet shows that levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are higher now than at any time in the past 420,000 years. "
So I responded with Antarctic core data. The NOAA Paleoclimatology World Data Centers is my reference. I used the original source.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Also note that I cited two Arctic/Greenland cores also
June 27, 2008 - 18:38 ET by Giles WinterbourneWhich you seem not to take issue with. With resolution of year to year or decade by decade.
Nice little spin
June 27, 2008 - 17:30 ET by CobraMan"Yet the fact that we have been the agents of changeadd since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution."
Nice little spin there, but there's a fact that you seem to be missing. If different cores are giving different result to the same tests over the same periods of history, and those cores are from the same general location (Antarctica), then there can be no consensus as to the results of those two tests. To form a consensus, the data must match relatively closely and the data from the two different studies do not do this. This leads me to believe that, contrary to what some people believe, all we have are guesses as to the cause and effect of climate change now and in the past. If we’re only guessing about the past and present, it is impossible to offer anything other than guesses as to the future.
Also, there’s something else you’re missing. The data my link provides allows for a longer historical sample that the core data your link provides as my core sample represents a longer time period than the core samples that your study used is using. More data over a longer period of time means more accurate results, wouldn’t you agree? So which core data is more accurate, yours or mine?
In addition, the core study in your link was 5 years OLDER than my core study (1999 for your link and 2004 for mine). A newer sample and testing date equals better and more accurate testing procedures and more accurate results as testing equipment and methods has improved GREATLY between 1999 and 2004, wouldn’t you agree? Yet you still use older and less accurate data in your arguments that Mankind is increasing the natural process to a great extent than otherwise would occur. I believe that this is an incorrect assessment of the power of Man over the natural world. You, on the other hand, may believe otherwise. The fact remains that nether one of us has any real PROOF, nor does anyone else.
Here’s what I believe: Global warming and cooling is a NATURAL process and, since the energies involved in warming (and cooling) 5 quadrillion metric tons of atmospheric gasses far exceed ANYTHING we, or “our” CO2, can produce over any given perioud of time, it is rather unlikely that we‘re having much of an effect on the global climate in ether the long term or the short term. Even if we detonated all the nuclear devices in the world simultaneously, it would equal only a fraction of the required energies involved in causing a change in short term global temperatures, let alone long term changes, yet you seem to think that we puny little Humans are increasing the total energy content of the atmosphere simply by burning fossil fuels. That‘s outrageous! It’s obvious that we have very little to do with it. Therefore, it’s better to prepare for the inevitable climate change that will occur than to waste trillions of dollars in a futile attempt to try to control the uncontrollable as only the first approach will succeed while the latter will fail. Look to New Orleans as an example: When the levies break, we have no place to stay.
Big IF
June 27, 2008 - 18:45 ET by Giles Winterbourne'If different cores are giving different result to the same tests over
the same periods of history, and those cores are from the same general
location (Antarctica), then there can be no consensus as to the results
of those two tests.'
Examples? While there may be outliers, the body of evidence is pretty consistent.
You're expanding on the original posting. I was simply verifying presence of research showing ice at the poles which someone was questioning.
Feel free to take the science questions to a science site.Might want to try it at sites that don't conform to your opinions also.
Do as I say...
June 28, 2008 - 13:54 ET by CobraMan"Feel free to take the science questions to a science site.Might want to
try it at sites that don't conform to your opinions also."
In other words, don't question the theories and opinions that you post here at NB, right? We must accept everything you post as the absolute truth and we should bring our doubts and questions as the reliability and accuracy of the science you quote as proof to someone else for discussion and rebuttal, as we’re not worth of questioning you and your opinions. Isn't that correct? Talk about being an elitist!
Since when does any "science site" have definitive PROOF of anything? Science is full of theories and postulations and there is very little PROOF involved in any of it.
For example, NASA has various "science sites" that deal with Astrophysics yet those Astrophysicists’ has yet to prove ANY of their theoretical models about things like the formation of planetary systems and galactic structures. As a matter of fact, every time an Astrophysicist tries to PROVE a theory through observation and experimentation, that scientist finds that their theoretical model was grossly incorrect and that they need to modify that model to account for the unexpected data they recorded.
Case in point: The Hubble Telescope did a high resolution, long exposure survey of a very small section of "empty" space a few years back and every theoretical model of the density and distribution of matter in the universe indicated that the area under study shouldn't reveal very many "new" galaxies, yet when the survey was completed the scientists performing that survey marveled at the number of unexpected galaxies that were observed (they numbered in the thousands!) and this forced the scientists to revise their theories as to universal mass density and distribution.
As far as visiting “science” sites that doesn’t share in your opinions, I suggest that you do the same as you just may learn something new.
Feel free
June 28, 2008 - 14:58 ET by Giles Winterbourne'As far as visiting “science” sites that doesn’t share in your opinions,
I suggest that you do the same as you just may learn something new.'
Actually, I do visit a range of denier, skeptic, and delayer sites; climateaudit, junkscience, motls, prometheus, benny, warwick, idso, others..... Mostly through RSS subscriptions.Following the flaws in the logic is helpful in developing critical thinking skills.
I notice you link to nothing to support your contentions. How would that work on any science site?
Sure, if you have the credentials to argue the research behind the findings, go right ahead. But I suspect most here don't.
What an open mind!
June 28, 2008 - 17:46 ET by CobraMan"I do visit a range of denier, skeptic, and delayer sites; climateaudit,
junkscience, motls, prometheus, benny, warwick, idso, others....."
"denier, skeptic, and delayer sites" What an open mind! That must really help you decide which opinions are closer to the facts and which are not. It looks to me that you're not interested in debate, just obedience to those scientific "facts" and opinions that you support while excluding those “facts” and opinions that you don’t. So much for scientific objectivity.
BTW, it doesn't take a scientist to figure out that most science is just guesswork, all you need is a little life experience and a good memory, along with a little research into scientific history.
Case in point: Every time I hear about how some scientific theory has been proven correct, especially though consensus, I am reminded of my childhood when I was taught that it was scientific FACT that all life on earth was ultimately depended upon the sun for it's metobolic energy and that all life forms on earth ether received that energy from the sun directly through photosynthesis or indirectly through the metabolism of photosynthesis based life forms. This was the scientific consensus for several decades until someone discovered a form of life that was not dependent upon the sun. If you remember, this was the bacteria that thrives in the deep see trenches and that receives their metabolic energy directly from the heat of earth as opposed to the light from the sun. Suddenly, the solar-centric FACT of life was shown to be incorrect. Now hundreds of lifeforms have been discovered that do not rely upon the sun in any way to power their metabolism. So, what happened to that pervious FACT? Well, it turns out that this FACT wasn't really that factual now, was it?.
So, what does that teach me? It teaches me that “established scientific fact” is nothing of the kind and that we know very little about how the natural world works. So, why should I trust the scientific community about the FACT of human caused global warming, a very complex and convoluted subject, when that same scientific community couldn't even get a simple fact right, like that of what powers life? If they’re wrong on a simple "fact" like solar-centric life theory, then it's more than likely that they’re wrong on the complex ones as well.
So, you can put your faith in those scientists (that you agree with) if you want, but I'm going to play it safe and use a bit of skepticism as to the what is or is not scientific fact.
It teaches me that
June 30, 2008 - 13:26 ET by Giles Winterbourne'I am reminded of my childhood when I was taught that it was scientific
FACT that all life on earth was ultimately depended upon the sun.'
Science changes with new facts.
Elementary school science is very simplified, and unfortunately not taught by teachers with a strong science backgrounds.
And perhaps you missed the 'As far as we know' statement.
And there is, of course, the very real possibility that Neaderthals controlled the school budget and the textbooks were outdated.
'It teaches me that “established scientific fact” is nothing of the kind
and that we know very little about how the natural world works.'
Starting with a bad example and poorly understood assumptions and leaping to a broad condemnation of the basics of scientific understanding, the body of knowledge, and how the scientific process works isn't a very convincing argument.
Opinions are personal contentions
June 28, 2008 - 18:09 ET by CobraMan"I notice you link to nothing to support your contentions. How would that work on any science site?"
I don't know, this isn't a "science site" now, is it? Yet I notice that this fact hasn't prevented you from posting your opinions here, has it? It doesn't matter anyway because that's a straw man argument. One not need to provide “proof” to offer an opinion. All one needs is an opinion to offer. Besides, most of the “scientific sites” I visit do not have the ability for me to post comments and/or question the articles that they post. They are not forums; they are publications just like the links you provided as “proof.” There is a difference between the two formats, you know.
As far as posting opinions here at NB, opinions are not “scientific” contentions, they are personal contentions, and I have no need to link to someone else's opinions to support mine. I am a reasonably intelligent man and I have the ability to form opinions all on my own, you know. Other may, or may not agree with my opinions, but I don’t need to reference them to express my opinions, nor do I need some type of scientific degree to form my opinions. Or do you feel that this ability to form opinions about science is only achievable by someone with a scientific degree? If so, you’re visiting the wrong site.
You may not realize this, or acknowledged it, but it doesn't take a scientific degree to investigate, analyze, and form an opinion about any particular subject. All it takes is a little time and effort. Anyone with the ability can form an opinion, even a correct opinion, without the need of a degree. I’m sure you do it every day.
Inconvient facts. Your ice
June 27, 2008 - 19:28 ET by danboInconvient facts. Your ice core samples have been shot to hell. (See above) Inconvient fact. During the depression, fuel use stagnated. We had a good warming. From the 40's into the 70's we had an explosions of fuel usage. Tempertures headed south. The natural cycles shifted in the late 70's or early 80's and temp increases matched the CO2 ioncrease. Since the late 90's CO2 continues to rise and tempertures first were fairly level and now seem to be headed south again. Another natural shift?
There are 4 possible causes for a coorelations between variable A and variable B. One A causes B. The one you're selling. Two. B causes A. Three, both A and B are caused by an unidentified variable or group of variables we will call Variable C. And forth, pure coincident. They are totally unrelated. The other 3 have not been ruled out.
AGWings problem. The coorelation shifts between positive and negative. And Warmers try to tell us that A cause B is the only option.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Total nonsense Giles, the CO2 lag is well documented
June 28, 2008 - 00:11 ET by PopularTech180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 2, pp. 259-282(24), March 2007)
- Beck, Ernst-Georg
Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination
(Science, Vol. 291. no. 5501, 5 January 2001)
- Eric Monnin, Andreas Indermühle, André Dällenbach, Jacqueline Flückiger, Bernhard Stauffer, Thomas F. Stocker, Dominique Raynaud, Jean-Marc Barnola
Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations
(Science, Vol. 283. no. 5408, pp. 1712 - 1714, 12 March 1999)
- Hubertus Fischer, Martin Wahlen, Jesse Smith, Derek Mastroianni, Bruce Deck
"High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations."
Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming
(Science, September 27, 2007)
- Lowell Stott, Axel Timmermann, Robert Thunell
The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka
(Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 20, Issue 4, Pages 583-589, February 2001)
- Manfred Mudelsee
Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III
(Science 14, Vol. 299. no. 5613, March 2003)
- Nicolas Caillon, Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, Jean Jouzel, Jean-Marc Barnola, Jiancheng Kang, Volodya Y. Lipenkov
"The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation."
Carbon Dioxide Did Not End The Last Ice Age, Study Says (Science Daily)
The Sun still drives the Climate Giles, I know you wish it were not so but that is the reality:
The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing (The Danish National Space Center)
"...over the past 20 years the solar cycle remains fully apparent in variations both of tropospheric air temperature and of ocean subsurface water temperature. [...]
When the response of the climate system to the solar cycle is apparent in the troposphere and ocean, but not in the global surface temperature, one can only wonder about the quality of the surface temperature record.
For whatever reason, it is a poor guide to Sun-driven physical processes that are still plainly persistent in the climate system. [...]
...one cannot distinguish between the effects of anthropogenic gases such as carbon dioxide and of natural greenhouse gases. For example, increased evaporation means that infrared radiation from water vapor, by far the most important greenhouse gas, will tend to provide positive feedback for any global warming, ... In any case, the most recent global temperature trend is close to zero. [...]
The continuing rapid increase in carbon dioxide concentrations during the past 10-15 years has apparently been unable to overrule the °attening of the temperature trend as a result of the Sun settling at a high, but no longer increasing, level of magnetic activity. Contrary to the argument of Lockwood and FrÄohlich, the Sun still appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change."
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
uncritically selected resources
June 28, 2008 - 15:13 ET by Giles WinterbourneSo we're back to the 'here's my short list of uncritically selected resources that fit my meme, haven't been supported by further research, rarely get cited in further research, and have been generally disproven in research, or debunked in scientific discourse'.
For the uninitiated, any one chapter of any one IPCC report lists multiple pages of cites of research supporting Anthropogenic Global Warming. Further, any single issue of any reputable science journal has new research continuing to support AGW.
This short list may look impressive to uncritical, non-scientfic eyes, but they've been thoroughly discussed before. There are far better resources.
National Geo
National Academies
If the shoe fits
June 28, 2008 - 18:46 ET by CobraMan"So we're back to the 'here's my short list of uncritically selected
resources that fit my meme, haven't been supported by further research,
rarely get cited in further research, and have been generally disproven
in research, or debunked in scientific discourse'."
"For the uninitiated, any one chapter of any one IPCC report lists
multiple pages of cites of research supporting Anthropogenic Global
Warming. Further, any single issue of any reputable science journal has
new research continuing to support AGW."
And so we're back to your extremely long list of ‘uncritically selected resources that fit my meme, haven't been supported by further research, rarely get cited in further research, and have been generally disproven in research, or debunked in scientific discourse.'
It's funny that this "established" scientific data as quoted in the report you are using to justify you OPINIONS is now facing further research and conformation vie scientific methods. I guess the report was wrong in their conclusions, weren't they? Why else would that additional research be needed if that report is correct and the data it contained is “factual?” It's obvious that it's not as "factual' as you were led to believe, and you know it! I think you need better references.
Understanding why factual
June 29, 2008 - 13:03 ET by cleverpigUnderstanding why factual findings require further research would require you to understand how science works, which you clearly don't.
Every good scientific result should produce twice as many questions as it answers. It should, if it is true and meaningful, spawn more research into why, into how, into the next level of detail, into historical correlates, into root causes, into possible consequences.
The "extremely long list" is long precisely because these papers have not been debunked. Nobody cites a paper that's been disproven, and these days databases like the Science Citation Index let you see exactly how influential a paper has been and when it's influence peaked. If a paper sucks, you'll have a short period where it is cited by papers proving it wrong, and then it won't be touched after that.
Look some stuff up, it's enlightening.
Thanks
June 30, 2008 - 13:34 ET by Giles WinterbourneWell written.
Good points.
Global warming? Not this year.
June 28, 2008 - 18:58 ET by CobraManBTW, I'd be careful of using the UN report as a justification of your believe of AGW if I were you.
"U.N.: Global Temperatures to Decrease Temporarily
Monday, April 07, 2008"
Link
Tell me, if CO2 IS causing global warming like you believe, and if humans are STILL pumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every day and at a rate that increased every year, then why is are global temperatures currently COOLING? By all of your arguments, they should still be rising, and at an ever increasing rate, correct? Unless, of course, that AGW is NOT occurring and your belief in our influence on global temperatures is completely wrong.
Good grief. You use
June 28, 2008 - 19:21 ET by danboGood grief. You use a link for 2008 that compares GISS for 2005 as the end of the world. Looks kind of like this. Now let's change that to 2007. You see this.
Now this is based on a 1200 km smoothing radius. Let's change the smoothing radius to 250 km. You see this. All the gray area is missing data. GISS just smooths it to look good.
Both GISS and National Geographic use the 1950-1980 as the base line to compare. A noted cold era. Let's look at the data for the last 10 years. You see this. Even with the warm january. If you look at this spring which brings us closer to date you see this.
Your National Geographic is pushing a lot of BS with cherry picked data.
Please tell us the species that have become extinct due to climate change.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- this.Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Peer-Reviewed Papers from the Journal Science Dismissed by Giles
June 28, 2008 - 19:37 ET by PopularTechYes Giles I have presented 6 peer-reviewed papers, 4 from the Journal Science that should show up in even your ISI search that fully document and support the CO2 lag in the ice core records and in other proxy recreations. This isn't a "short-list" but overwhelming evidence that CO2 has never driven the climate. They have not been debunked nor has the other papers I presented.
For the uninitiated please read up on the IPCC and it's so called "report"
Independent Summary for Policymakers: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (PDF) (Fraser Institute)
Inadequacies and criticisms of the IPCC (PDF) (Robert (Bob) M. Carter, B.Sc. Geology, Ph.D. Paleontology)
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report 2007 Analysis and Summary (PDF) (Science & Public Policy Institute)
Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor? (PDF) (Science & Public Policy Institute)
Peer Review? What Peer Review? Failures of scrutiny in the UN's Fourth Assessment Report (PDF) (Science & Public Policy Institute)
What is Wrong with the IPCC? (PDF) (Science & Public Policy Institute)
Why the IPCC should be disbanded (PDF) (Science & Public Policy Institute)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Not understanding the science
June 30, 2008 - 13:09 ET by Giles WinterbourneAlong with tossing out red herrings, not describing the entire cycle, using elementary school level of science for analysis.....
"This proves that rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused
the initial warming at the end of these ice ages – but no climate
scientist has ever made this claim. It certainly does not challenge the
idea that more CO2 heats the planet.
And while the rises in CO2 a few hundred years after the
start of interglacials can only be explained by rising temperatures,
the full extent of the temperature increases over the following 4000
years can only be explained by the rise in CO2 levels."
"So what does the CO2 lag tell us? The behaviour of CO2 in the past
confirms the amplifying effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. Sharp
temperature rises in the past indicate how sensitive climate is to
change. Our past history shows how our climate is prone to "tipping
points" where warming can lead to positive feedbacks sparking a warming
effect."
"Orbital variations (Berger, 1978) are the pacemaker of climate
change on multi-millenial time-scales (Hays et al., 1976).
Atmospheric CO2 is one of many Earth system variables that
show the characteristic “Milankovitch” periodicities, and has been
implicated as a key factor in locking natural climate changes to the
100 kyr eccentricity cycle (Shackleton, 2000). Whatever the
mechanisms involved, lags of up to 2,000 to 4,000 years in the
drawdown of CO2 at the start of glacial periods suggests that the
low CO2 concentrations during glacial periods amplify the climate
change but do not initiate glaciations (Lorius and Oeschger, 1994;
Fischer et al., 1999). Once established, the low CO2 concentration
is likely to have enhanced global cooling (Hewitt and Mitchell,
1997). During the last deglaciation, rising CO2 paralleled
Southern Hemisphere warming and was ahead of Northern
Hemisphere warming (Chapter 2)."
Yes Giles CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas but it does not drive climate
June 30, 2008 - 19:03 ET by PopularTechCO2 being a greenhouse gas and C02 driving the climate are two different things.
Cold Facts on Global Warming (Image Analysis and Measurement Lab)
"What is the contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide to global warming? This question has been the subject of many heated arguments, and a great deal of hysteria. ...we will consider a simple calculation, based on well-accepted facts, that shows that the expected global temperature increase caused by doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide levels is bounded by an upper limit of 1.4-2.7 degrees centigrade. This result contrasts with the results of the IPCC's climate models, whose projections are shown to be unrealistically high. [...] At the current rate of increase, CO2 will not double its current level until 2255."
Temperature changes over the last 4000 years can be explained by Solar Cycles and Milankovich Cycles, CO2 just goes along for the ride. Giles your links talk about worthless computer models again.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
re brn in reasonably easy to understand science
June 30, 2008 - 21:14 ET by Giles Winterbournere brn in reasonably easy to understand science: 'So in toto, it’s not too impressive a thesis.' Really, what are this guy's qualifications? Credentials?
Or IPCC's explanation
re Milankovitch: "There is still some discussion about how exactly this starts and ends ice ages, but many studies suggest that the amount of summer
sunshine on northern continents is crucial: if it drops below a critical value, snow from the past winter does not melt away in summer and an ice sheet starts to grow as more and more snow accumulates. Climate model simulations confirm that an Ice Age can indeed be started in this way,"
""The fluctuations in the solar cycle impacts Earth's global temperature
by about 0.1 degree Celsius, slightly hotter during solar maximum and
cooler during solar minimum,""
"Changes in solar irradiance since 1750 are estimated
to cause a radiative forcing of +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.30]
W m–2, which is less than half the estimate given in the
TAR."
FYI: Fixing Climate by Broecker and Kunzig walk through the history of climate science research and have a p