Greenland glacier QUADRUPLES speed, swells seas The river of ice that's widely thought to have calved the iceberg that sank the Titanic has sped up to such a rate that it may now be the fastest flowing glacier on the globe. "We are now seeing summer speeds more than four times what they were in the 1990s on a glacier which at that time was believed to be one of the fastest …
It's one of many indicators. We are warming the earth and the consequences are not good. Read what NASA, NAS, AAAS, AIP, MET, AGU, and others say. There's no credible doubt.
Please join the efforts to reduce global emissions. Apathy only advocates more of the same dangerous behaviors.
www.ExhaustingHabitability.com
As seen in a previous posting, some will ignore all data, especially data that is verifiable.
You know, thinks like Archimedes' principle?
Instead they'll claim that the sea swells with heat or some other bullshit.
Oh well, we'll continue as usual, I'll end up with beach front property and be laughing when London and Wall Street go under the waves, much to the great consternation of the wealthy business masters of the masses.
They might conclude you have been lead astray by incompetnts.
To start with: How can they tell levels have risen 1 mm?
Next: How do they know the ice on Greenland isn't sitting on water that is already connected to the sea in a manner that would have meant the ice was indirectly already floating?
And finally, all talk of global warming applies to regions of the seas in the Doldrums; a region encompassed by stable pressures of around 1016 mb.
Once it gets converted to atmospheric heat the dynamic changes from warming according to gas pressure laws into cyclones and anticyclones. Which at higher latitudes take the heat up into the upper atmosphere all the damned time.
Very little of that comes back down, so that what you get is an overall diminishing return of global heating.
If you can't see that, you shouldn't be involved in any arguments about glowbollocks.
You should be hyperventilating into a brown paper bag and then getting suitable medication for your stupidity.
Tip: Ask your doctor for some cyanosis. He will realise what your problem is immediately.
"How can they tell levels have risen 1 mm?"
Well, I guess they first took the estimated volume of water melted off the glacier (call it V), then they took the estimated surface area of the Earth's connected oceans (S) - you can google it up. Finally they calculated what would be the height of a cylinder of volume V and base area S by dividing V by S. No? :-)
Have you disconnected from the grid? No, you're posting on the net. Do you drive a car, heat your house, grow your own food, wear clothes only from natural fibers, given up flying, auto, bus, and train travel? I doubt it. You don't want to change your own "dangerous behavior." All you want is to raise money to pay your salary at your non-profit.
You cannot prove global warming by regional warming, especially when the temp over the rest of the world is sufficiently cooler than the average over the last ten years as to negate all the regional warming in the Arctic. Global temps have not risen in the last 14 to 17 years, depending on the data source you use. The world has wised up to your fraudulant scare tactics.
Go away.
This post has been deleted by its author
If you can't be bothered to look at possibilities other than your blinkered biased opinion. Try searching Google "world temperature past ten years", number 2 http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/07/why-global-temperatures-held-s.html
Hardly an extreme view tome and they state that models show a halt in temp rises due to el nino and Chinese polution among other factors. The final paragraph is below, that at least is a reasoned responce unlike yours.
"So there are two key messages we can take from the research. The first is that the brief halt in global warming doesn't necessarily mean there's a problem with climate science: known factors can account for it. And the second is that the reprieve may be only temporary. "
"So there are two key messages we can take from the research. The first is that the brief halt in global warming doesn't necessarily mean there's a problem with climate science: known factors can account for it. And the second is that the reprieve may be only temporary. "
Unfortunately even with those 2 provisos the various MMGW AGW CC groups feel that spending Billions on what they cannot explain and don't understand is the best way forward. This means that generally people may feel that they are just funding these scientists lifestyles and having got onto the merry-go-round of funding, are these scientists likely to say they were wrong? Also when most of the evidence comes from groups that include Climate Change in their names and remits, we know they are going to find that there's lots of it around and more needs to be done - Just look at ASH and smoking - If you work for an organization whose existence is dependent on a threat - you WILL find that threat.
Have I got the, or even an, answer - No.
We DO know and can explain the primary reason why the world is warming, and that hasn't been in any serious doubt for at least a decade. It's due to emissions of greenhouse gases like CO2 from our activities.
Could you please pass this information on to the IPCC or the Planet as they have no idea and their models don't show why there has been a 15 year+ hiatus in warming, unless they twist and turn the models so far out of kilter that all they are is a representation of now.
"Global temps have not risen in the last 14 to 17 years, depending on the data source you use"
Only if you pick very selective data, and ignore ocean temperatures. "More than 90 percent of the excess heat being caused by human activities is being absorbed by the ocean," the WMO said.
Over the long term the warming trend is very clear - and the current slow down in surface warming is within the level of variations seen in previous records...
"Please join the efforts to reduce global emissions."
I'm all for reducing global emissions. By switching to nuclear power as much as possible.
Unfortunately, lobbying businesses like Greenpeace and Co are fighting tooth and nail to retain our dependence on burning fossil fuels...
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
Who keeps posting this kneepad-style AGW bilge? Feel the propaganda:
"This retreat is a cause for some concern, seeing as how unlike sea-borne ice, melting land-based ice adds to sea-level rise as it dumps its chilly self into the ocean."
WRONG. As a glacier tongue enters the sea it raises sea level just the same as if it had melted on land and had run down as liquid water. Fail.
"We know that from 2000 to 2010 this glacier alone increased sea level by about 1mm," says Joughin. "With the additional speed it likely will contribute a bit more than this over the next decade."
Oh, we 'know' this, do we? Got proof?
"A millimeter here, a millimeter there, all coupled with the overall expansion of the mass of a warmer ocean, and pretty soon you're talking about beachfront property in Denver, Colorado.
Well, no, of course – but you get the implications."
Oh, I get it alright. Be afraid, be VERY afraid! Pay no attention to your lying eyes, that's just weather! This glacier over here is what matters, and it's going BERSERK! Aaaaagh!
@ Big John
To quote that insightful and well-informed rodent, Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon."
Or, to quote another intellect, Mr. T, "I pity the fool."
And you, sir, are the fool to be pitied. The world is warming. Warming has consequences. As does your misunderstanding of the author's reference to sea-borne v. land-borne ice.
I pity the fool.
Sigh.
Whilst I cannot disagree with the fact that the earth is warming I am completely unsure that it is us who are causing it.
So, you might say "cause and effect". We have increased our output of CO2, and other harmful gasses into the atmosphere. Is Earth really that delicate? Did/can the planet survive?
"You say did?" I hear you ask. Well our planet was much more volatile in the past, probably due to increased volcanic activity, the sun having more fuel to burn perhaps and other stimuli which we probably dont even understand.
I once heard that cows produce a damn lot of methane and CO2 which is also harmful the environment. So much so that our large scale farming of these creatures causes as much CO2 as we do directly (correct me if im wrong). The greatest 2 contributors are the ocean and volcanoes. These 2 account for some massive percentage so again, I'm led to believe, are we right?
The beauty of science is that all science is fact until its been disproven by something else. I'm not saying we are wrong, but we could be, and perhaps we need a little more faith in the old girl that she will see us right. I mean she survived the dinosaurs right? Oh wait.... :S
But in all seriousness, I believe in the 70s climatologists were terrified the planet was cooling and encouraged the burning of fuels to generate CO2, think it had an effect?
Mankind has 3 things it needs to do:
1. Nuclear Fusion
2. Easy, accessible space travel for all
3. Flying cars (like Back to the Future, none of this propeller/winged nonsense)
Then there will be no CO2 to worry about.
</rant>
Mankind has 3 things it needs to do:
1. Nuclear Fusion
Done! Oh, did you mean controlled fusion for producing electricity? Why? A sensible fission program using known or plausibly-commercial technologies like breeder reactors, CANDU, pebble-bed, and/or traveling-wave is far more achievable and solves the same problem.
2. Easy, accessible space travel for all
Sigh. Spend an absurdly enormous energy and materials budget to leave a hugely beneficial environment, at tremendous risk. If we can ever afford this, it's a pure luxury, good only for ideological projects like "preserving the human species". (Space travel for scientific research, entertainment, etc has other benefits, but "space travel for all" does not. It's a polished turd.)
3. Flying cars (like Back to the Future, none of this propeller/winged nonsense)
We already have plenty of ways for idiots to harm themselves and others. I can't see this one making a significant difference.
"Spend an absurdly enormous energy and materials budget to leave a hugely beneficial environment, at tremendous risk."
I am totally and utterly amazed, Michael, that you even bothered to leave your mother's womb. Very surprising to see you had such a dashing, risk-taking spirit in you, given the sentiment of your post... :-)
> cows produce a damn lot of methane and CO2
That is true. But _all_ the carbon in that which they produce, and all the carbon in their meat (and other stuff) comes from one source: the grass (and corn where applicable). And the grass gets all its carbon from CO2 in the atmosphere.
Cattle and sheep and stuff are carbon neutral.
Where the problem comes from is that carbon is being extracted from underground (in the form of coal and oil) and being converted to CO2 _without_ any corresponding balance that returns the carbon to underground to complete the cycle.
This is not a game of chess.
This is science in the making.
You can quote whatever URL you want, when it comes to science I don't give a damn about the opinion of someone who is not a scientist.
What I want is a scientific study giving unequivocal proof, approved by every other scientific body, with no caveats, no shady issues and no omissions.
When I see that report, when scientists have finally understood how climate works and can reliably predict its evolution, then I will know that we know what is happening and why.
And that ain't happening tomorrow, so let the scientists work and stop being oh-so-sure you know what's going on because you don't and nobody does.
Climate science is based on thermodynamics, and anybody who has studied thermodynamics knows that it is by far the most difficult are of science. Climate studies have only started, we have weather data that is barely 200 years old and reliable data that is less old than that (when it's not being mucked about with to fit someone's agenda).
We do NOT have sufficient knowledge of our planet, or of the science, to claim that the planet is warming, or that Humanity is a cause.
Deal with it.
More anti-science dressed up as someone who thinks of themself as a rational science based person.
Just because science doesn't know everything, doesn't mean that it doesn't know anything. Your demand for science to know everything before you will accept it is literally impossible to fulfil.
"More anti-science dressed up as someone who thinks of themself as a rational science based person."
Someone who think that human civilisation is under threat from a 2C rise in *average* temperatures ... is being rational?
I don't think so.
Someone who thinks that a glacier melting *during an interglacial period* is an unusual data point ... is being rational?
I don't think so.
Someone who takes the output of models which don't reflect aerosols or clouds, and treats that output as the empirical data of a scientific experiment ... is clearly rational?
Thought not.
Rationality in climate debates would be a welcome development. If you are you in favour of more, I suggest you start with your own side, and clean up your own house.
This post has been deleted by its author
@AC Agree totally.
We know enough to say that pouring emissions (of any type) into the atmosphere (probably anywhere) is not a good idea. No problem there. We also have the issue of trying to conserve a finite resource we still need. There are lots of good reasons to try and not use carbon based fuels for heating etc.
However, here's the rub. Making changes and reducing emissions is fine to a point, but we're faced with a problem. Firstly, there are plenty of people around who want drastic emissions regardless of what others do and almost regardless of cost. This is silly. We need to reduce emissions where practical, but not to the point of thousands of pensioners dying of cold over winter. Some of this is political and taxation as well to maybe give them more money. However, we can't possibly do everything and we also need to get worldwide support. Without including big (relatively) emitters, anything the UK does is irrelevant, but might cause us huge economic issues.
We also have a major problem with people looking too short term. We've rushed at technologies because we have a decent understanding of them now, whereas if we invested in research for a few years, we might get a much better solution in the long run. Sometimes, doing nothing for a few years and then investing will yield a much better return that building immediately. A good example of this is wind turbines. We basically had the technology worked out very early on, but they're actually a really bad way of generating electricity for a whole host of reasons. But, we've invested massively in them and ignored what probably are much better solutions. We've created economic environments where you're better off investing in wind farms than trying to develop a much better solution. e.g. tidal and wave.
Finally, we have to realise this is a tradeoff situation. The Severn barrage may or may not be a good idea. However, if it makes sense in every other way, we might just have to put up with the environmental changes it will make upstream and the damage to habitats. We're in a situation where every solution has at least one downside, yet all the eco warriors insist you do something, but then object to just about every possibly solution. Well, we're just going to have to choose the lesser of two evils unless we want to go back to the caves and subsistence farming, which isn't going to happen. Sometimes there is no perfect answer and a lot of the eco people need to realise this. Often, it's simply picking the option that causes least damage rather than no damage at all.
After all, the very existence of every single person affects the environment in some, very tiny way.
"We do NOT have sufficient knowledge of our planet, or of the science, to claim that the planet is warming, or that Humanity is a cause."
Whenever I hear about sea level rises, it does make me wonder what happened to Doggerland, the land bridge between Alaska and Siberia, the land that is now various groups of islands in the region of Malaysia etc.
It seems to me that sea level has been rising or falling pretty much since the oceans first existed, mainly due to ice ages either approaching or receding at any one moment in time.
There is no doubt that the climate is changing. Whether "we" have anything to do with it, or at least anything significant is still debatable. It may be that we do have some effect and a change in our civilisation might mitigate some change in climate, but we can't stop climate change to the extent that it;s changing anyway. We are still coming out of an ice age so the planet is still warming and sea levels are still rising.
"What I want is a scientific study giving unequivocal proof, approved by every other scientific body, with no caveats, no shady issues and no omissions."
IOW you want holy write handed down to you by a priesthood so you can have faith.
That's about as far from the scientific method as you can get.
What you're looking for is not science. If you think it is you're deluding yourself.
@Big_Ted, All that article does is try to keep the scam going. A single statistical model MIGHT show that there is a pause that MIGHT, or MIGHT NOT, continue - that is not science that is religion.
There is NOT ONE of the models that have been produced by the climate science religion that actually fit measured temperatures - even those that they have fiddled with to try and get the past to fit a bit better still do not predict correctly the future.
@ Ivan 4
Its really sad when someone posts the sort of thing you just did, you claim its a scam etc and refuse to see any other possibility, that is as bad as what you accuse the majority of the worlds scientists of, they beleif in global warming but have different opinions of cause and effect. You just refuse to accept it, oh and please if no model can show climate change how do you know for sure that the climate isn't changeing ?
Its really sad when someone posts the sort of thing you just did, you claim its a scam etc and refuse to see any other possibility, that is as bad as what you accuse the majority of the worlds scientists of, they beleif in global warming but have different opinions of cause and effect.
The majority of the world's scientists? Let's be clear, we are talking about climate scientists here. And saying "most" indicates that you know very well that some scientists doubt the full supposed threat of AGW.
You just refuse to accept it, oh and please if no model can show climate change how do you know for sure that the climate isn't changeing ?
That's not the issue. The issue is whether we have enough (or any) evidence to supposet that humans are causing massive climate change. Three years ago, you'd be lucky to get an AGW believer to admit that our supposed "catastrophic climate change" has paused. Now the obvious fact is inescapable, there is not one iota of a thought int he general body of AGW believers that their model and their theory could be wrong. Even though the observed data has contradicted their theory. We get excuse after excuse for why the models failed. We still get Al Gore bleating incessently about "deniers" and "the facts are in". Well no, the facts are not in. The observed data has destroyed your theory.
"So the models do predict this if we add data to them....."
No.
A new model backcast that result.
BTW This is a statistical model of the climate, which I read as not a full GCM using the actual physics.
I'm not a statistician but I read this as being like the curve fitting that used to take statistics on aircraft, spacecraft and launch vehicles to give an idea of how much a new aerospace system will cost to develop.
This is the system that predicted that the Spacex F9 would cost 10x as much as it did.
IOW you can take a bunch of data and run it through a curve fitting program and it will give an equation. Wheather that equation means anything is another matter.
Correlation is not causation.
Or how the hell are you going to take the temperature of an ocean?
All this glowballs has come about because we now have the ability to measure the temperature of >>the surface<< of the oceans. But we use satellites to do it with and have no possible way of ensuring they are calibrated correctly.
If we did know their readings are correct, we still couldn't compare them to anything previous to satellite data.
"Well according to the data over the last 15 years the correct response to your unequivocal statement is no."
No, it's "not much, maybe nothing".
1998-2013: trend 0.042 ±0.140 °C/decade (2σ) (hadcrut4)
"And rather more to the point no climate models predict this happening either."
Well, no. No climate model predicted this slowdown, because climate models can't predict weather (ENSO). They have predicted that such slowdowns can happen. When run with the observed ENSO forced they have correctly predicted current conditions.
"As does your misunderstanding of the author's reference to sea-borne v. land-borne ice."
Hmmm, let us revisit the offending quote:
"This retreat is a cause for some concern, seeing as how unlike sea-borne ice, melting land-based ice adds to sea-level rise as it dumps its chilly self into the ocean."
In the context of the article, that 'sea-borne ice' got in the sea exactly how? Did it form there? Or did it break off a glacier that formed on land? Obviously the latter. So the fact that the ice is now floating (when it had not been previously) indicates that when it entered the sea it perforce had to drive up the sea level.
Have I clarified it enough?
> that 'sea-borne ice' got in the sea exactly how? Did it form there? Or did it break off a glacier that formed on land? Obviously the latter.
You are under-educated. 'sea-borne ice' is one of _two_ things: icebergs which did break off a land-borne glacier _OR_ ice that formed on the sea.
The whole of the Arctic ice cap is ice that formed at the surface of the sea and is and has always been 'sea-borne'. The Antarctic ice shelf (but not the ice cap) is also formed by freezing at the surface.
"'sea-borne ice' is one of _two_ things: icebergs which did break off a land-borne glacier _OR_ ice that formed on the sea."
Agreed. However, sea ice is not and never was the issue in the original article, please re-read it if you doubt me. True, sea-borne ice does not raise sea level as it melts, but if it got in the sea by running off the land and into the water, it definitely DID raise sea level at that time. Or perhaps being under-educated I have somehow got this wrong?
> WRONG. As a glacier tongue enters the sea it raises sea level just the
> same as if it had melted on land and had run down as liquid water. Fail.
While what you say is true, it is irrelevant because it FAILs to connect to the actual claim.
The original was referring to 'sea-borne ice'. Most of the Arctic become iced over each winter, much of this then melts during summer. This makes no difference to the sea level because it is 'sea-borne ice'. ie it is formed at the sea surface and is just floating on the surface.
Ice from glaciers that enters the sea, whether it melted before or after moving from land to sea, will raise the sea level. In this particular case the ice front is shifting away from the sea which means that all the water that was ice between the sea and the current ice front (ie was land-borne) has entered the sea and has caused it to rise. As the ice-front moves further away then that makes even more sea-level rise.
"While what you say is true, it is irrelevant because it FAILs to connect to the actual claim."
The actual claim included this little nugget:
"This retreat is a cause for some concern..."
The author was specifically referring to the retreat of the glacier foot from the sea and onto the land. He says this fact is a problem, in the very next words:
"..seeing as how unlike sea-borne ice, melting land-based ice adds to sea-level rise as it dumps its chilly self into the ocean."
The author is clearly implying that this 'sea-borne ice' got there by calving off a land based glacier, not by forming as sea ice. Sea ice was never mentioned. Therefore the actual claim compares floating glacial ice to melted glacial ice. Therefore your criticism is unwarranted. You really should take a course in basic logic.
> The author is clearly implying that this 'sea-borne ice' got there by calving off a land based glacier, not by forming as sea ice.
No. You are wrong. He did not imply that origin of 'sea-borne ice' at all.
The vast majority of sea-borne ice, the whole of the Arctic cap, was formed at the surface.
As that glacier has retreated from the sea then it no longer calves icebergs, so in the context of this glacier, and the article, there is _no_ sea-borne ice coming from it.
Last time I checked, sea level rise was one of the big boogeymen of the AGW crowd, and the article is all about said rise, and the author tries to instill fear with loaded but unsupported language, and even a pathetic 'joke' about a 1600M rise (ha ha), so I might be forgiven for jumping to a conclusion. Heck, that's SOP for the AGW'ers!
Thumbs up for that collection.
Note that we are looking at a possible sea level rise of a few mm.
But before we start panicking let's recall 3 things.
1) There has been a 15 year hiatus in the trend in average global temperature rise.
2) Without reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from China, India and the US nobody's efforts are worth a damm
3) The richest 85 individuals own as much wealth as the bottom 50% of the global population combined.
"Sorry, but could you explain just exactly what your third point has to do with climate change ?"
Simply to give perspective.
A very small group of people (that's not a typo it's a figure from the world bank IIRC) control more cash that roughly 3.3 billion That's about 38 million to 1.
Anyone wanting to affect global change should be aware of what their plans mean to those people.
Because if they don't like it you can bet it's very unlikely to happen.
James Balog's extreme ice survey
Lets make some assumptions:
1) MMGW is real and the models are right.
2) There is no hysteria about this, its all just scientific fact that the rest of us haven't understood.
Ok, so now what? Well, the only logical course of action to reduce emissions over the longer term, is to have fewer people.
People that have a given lifestyle will maintain that - its simply not realistic to expect people to stop flying when their family is scattered over 3 countries in 2 continents. Its also unrealistic to expect them to stop driving when their job may be 50 miles away from their home, and their friends and family may be 300 miles in the opposite direction.
Unless and until the green lobby come up with realistic solutions rather than the usual communism inspired mantra of "less", then they're going to get nowhere. Presumably they're leading by example and refraining from having children, as its the most carbon positive thing you can ever do with your life.
One of the predicted symptoms of warming is a decrease in the amount of tropical cyclones but an increase in their intensity. Well, looky look:
Fewer cyclones, but bigger blows
Smart science.
Just reading the other day that antibiotic resistant bugs could be a far larger hurdle for the human race than any GW effect. Imagine a time when the slightest cut or scratch turns into some full blown infection. Imagine a time when a simple operation on your appendix could kill you.
Not that I want to see cities submerged, leaving low lying areas for higher areas is big logistical problem.
Sure, the next pandemic could hugely reduce human populations and do tremendous damage to the world economy - whether it's from antibiotic-resistant bacteria or a new flu strain or what have you. (Hey, maybe Y. pestis will mutate enough to bypass inherited resistance! That could be fun.)
Personally, my money's on the next VEI 7 or 8 event. Though I won't be in any position to collect.
In short, there's a decent chance that even if the most pessimistic GW predictions are correct, we'll be screwed one way or another before the climate became really oppressive (he says, as he prepares to go out and shovel several inches of snow off the driveway for the second time today). Ditto hobgoblins like "peak oil". The natural world has plenty of ways to ruin humanity's day.
In the near future pollution is more of a worry than CO2.
We cannot make any worthwhile difference while China is expanding their power stations.
We need fusion.
We need to stop clearing land for fuel crops and grow trees.
The best way of dealing with CO2 is with plants using it.
Climates always change but how much effect are we having with it compared to natural causes?
We need fusion.
We have fusion. There's a big ball of it in the sky. Here on the ground, fission suits our needs just fine, if we'd only approach it sensibly.
We need to stop clearing land for fuel crops and grow trees.
Well, yeah, fuel crops (aside from small-scale wood burning) is pretty dumb.
The best way of dealing with CO2 is with plants using it.
As a storage system that only works at large scales, and only as long as you can maintain the plant density. When you get substantial die-off, due to disease or whatever, the CO2 goes right back into the atmosphere, courtesy of fire or microbial action. (In the latter case a substantial portion of the carbon may make it into the atmosphere as CH4, which is (in theory) even worse, since it's a more-potent GHG.)
And plant respiration puts more water vapor in the air, and that's a GHG too, so it's not a total win.
Personally, I'm pretty fond of trees, but I'm not looking to them as our new leafy saviors.
A question that, as a (non-climate) scientist, genuinely puzzles me: do the astonishingly large proportion of respondents on these forums who appear to regard climate scientists as venal, incompetent, conspiratorial fools reserve that attitude just for climate science, or for science/scientists in general - and if so why?
If the answer is that climate science is subject to severe political/economic pressures - and therefore cannot be trusted to deliver objective, principled research - well, so are other major areas of scientific endeavour.
And why do people who presumably wouldn't dream of claiming superior expertise to, say, a nuclear physicist or microbiologist, imagine that they are able to trump the expertise of scientists who have devoted careers to the equally (if not more) difficult, complex and technical subject of climate science?
I can't comment for everyone, only myself, but the reasons i don't fully believe either side of this argument is that many of the studies have been proven to have been falsified. Other studies have refused to release all data so that they can be verified and replicated. With out full transparency neither side can claim they unquestionably correct (if they are why not release the data...)
A similar issue may be around nuclear physics - because we have had 3 major issues in 50 years (not sure exactly how long nuclear power has been used) people are scared of it - could it not be that those 3 issues distort the whole field, i.e. 3 bad "models" have skewed the picture for the other 10,000?. If so is that not what is happening with climate science? a handful of "bad" studies condemning the rest?
"I can't comment for everyone, only myself, but the reasons i don't fully believe either side of this argument is that many of the studies have been proven to have been falsified."
What studies?
"Other studies have refused to release all data so that they can be verified and replicated. "
What studies?
Of course scientists are human and there will be Bad Science - in all disciplines. You say "many" climate studies have been proven to have been falsified... what proportion of the huge body of published climate research would you say these studies constitute? And should we, as you seem to suggest, distrust the entire discipline on the basis of these "bad eggs"? (Do you imagine, furthermore, that reputable climate scientists are incapable of distinguishing the good from the bad in their own field?)
I fully agree on the transparency issue: their is no excuse for not releasing data. Personally, as part of the peer review process (of which I am part), I would (and have done so) strongly recommend against publication of any study that fails to reveal the data behind the research. Apart from anything else, this goes against a basic tenet of the scientific method that a study that is not in principle replicable is worthless.
Re. nuclear physics, I am not familiar with the field and don't know what three "major issues" you refer to. But to answer your question on the basis of experience in my own field (where there have been plenty of "bad models"!), no, I would not imagine that three bad models skew the entire discipline in perpetuity. That's not how science progresses. If a model is recognised as bad by consensus, it is consigned to the scrapheap (peer review will reinforce this) and work goes on.
I can't remember the exact details of the major studies that were taken as "fact" and then found to be wrong i seem to remember it was a UK university that was then published as fact by one of the major international bodies - Any help me out here, was a couple of years back?
Then there is the BBC changing it's stance to "it is happening" based on a meeting of "scientists" that it refused to name and spent a lot of money trying to avoid disclosing who was at the meeting. Again anyone got any dates (think it was around 2012).
Then there was the "study" that said all polar bears would be dead by now (proven false)...
As you can see - the major details don't stick in a "layman's" mine but the general "they told us something that was a lie" does.
I am not saying that we should disregard all studies, that would be insane, just that the actions of a few have tainted the actions of the many. Like you say the good scientists will figure out the rubbish ones and ignore them - unfortunately the media / government / Quangos wont...
As one of the other replies said - i was taking three mile island, Chernobyl and Fukishima power station issues for Nuclear Physics as these are the only area that most people "see" nuclear physics - i know that there are "nuclear power plants" in the rover on mars (OK radio isotope) and that many submarines are nuclear and don't have any issues but look at France now - no more nuclear and turn off the existing ones...
sorry for rambling this morning - brain is all over the place. If i can remember any more details of the studies i mention above i will post them...
It was Phil Jones, professor at University of East Anglia and part of the Climatic Research Unit - the study was published and used when issues with some of the data were known and the reliability of other data sets was "questionable" - this was back in 2010 and still sticks in my mind...
Then there is the IPCC saying that Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035 but this was based purely on nothing more than some "thinking" - no peer reviewed studies, no physical data, nothing! these are supposed to be the people advising government policies and they just "make it up". Again this was 2010
I wonder if this is an example of a scientist being led by media questions? For example the soundbite '"We know that from 2000 to 2010 this glacier alone increased sea level by about 1mm," says Joughin'. Actually, he doesn't know that. What he may know is that if you measure the volume of H2O passing a particular point in that decade, you get a certain number of molecules that could be computed to a 1mm sea level rise IF THOSE MOLECULES ALL STAYED IN THE SEA. But they don't. This glacier is part of the water cycle. Water goes into ocean, water comes out of ocean.
Looking at the paper, it seems well done, in that they stick to their observations (it's speeded up) and give the immediate cause: "These speeds were achieved as the glacier terminus appears to have retreated to the bottom of an over-deepened basin with a depth of 1300m below sea level."
i.e it's because the end point of the glacier currently happens to be over deep water, whereas before it was over shallower water.Sensibly they don't say why that is the case, and also say that this phenomenon is generally not the case with the other 200 glaciers coming off Greenland.
Is about the rate of AGW, not whether it exists - and the arguments are over a few percentage points. There's general agreement that if nothing is done then it will be "bad, m'kay?"
It doesn't help that the datasets we have are incomplete. There are whole swathes of the planet we have no accurate data for.
Denialists use this to claim AGW isn't an issue.
Disclosure: I'm involved in a project to quantify _full_ global temperatures over the last 30-40 years using old satellite imaging to quantify changes in the earth's reflectivity (albedo) (GW is a function of heat in (the sun), vs emitted/reflected heat and the "A" part of AGW is to do with all that extra CO2 and other gasses in the atmosphere which enhance the heat trapping effect) If the project suceeds it will be a good few steps towards working out whose calculations are the most accurate, but whilst billions are spent on handwaving and shouting, very little is actually allocated to projects like this (amongst other things it needs a couple of PB of storage, which is very hard to find properly). The amount of money spent on ONE high level meeting would be enough to completely fund this and probably enough to speed up results by a factor of 10.
Please do look at the last 30-40 years it would be interesting but when it comes to extrapolating that out to the 10's of 1000's of years that mankind has been round, please don't use a factor of 'Well I want another grant'
By the way using words like deniers and telling people something exists without -repeatable- proof IS a religion.
"Denialists use this to claim AGW isn't an issue."
More insults. Almost all "denialists" do NOT claim AGW isn't an issue, they argue it isn't as urgent or as catastrophic a problem as the hysterical climate activists claim it is. By being so lazy and/or clumsy with your choice of words, you have intellectually boxed yourself into a corner.
There is no climate science argument. The argument has long since become purely ideological.
One camp believes that humanity is a parasitic burden on Mother Earth and should self-eradicate itself for the good of Gaia, while the rest of the word does not feel aroused by such guilt-porn fantasies.
I honestly do not know (meaning with scientific certainty) where the climate is heading, and what is causing such changes as are observed (and data can be confusing). I do know that climate was very much different in the past, both much warmer (for much of the fossil record), and much colder (pleistocene, anybody?). I know that solar activity plays a role, and I know that many other factors including greenhouse gasses and water vapour are important. I do not know all the precise mechanisms or which factors are most important (let alone which weight to assign to each factor). This is actually why this field of science is scientifically interesting. Unknowns are interesting, knowns are comparatively boring.
Despite all this uncertainty about the degree to which mankind may be contributing to change, I do know one simple fact: it is foolish to squander limited resources. Using up fossil fuels in wasteful ways, when oil and the like are also needed to manufacture more durable products, is not tenable in the long run. I agree we cannot suddenly all go back to the caves and shiver in the cold, but we can and should find alternatives, not so much to reduce pollution or CO2 emission (which in itself may make sense), but simply because at some point fossil fuels will run out. As these fuels become more expensive, it just makes (very selfish, perhaps) economic sense to be less wasteful.
I am open to suggestions about what the best alternatives are, and where we can make savings in use
Just my tuppence worth
"Using up fossil fuels in wasteful ways, when oil and the like are also needed to manufacture more durable products, is not tenable in the long run"
Two words: shale gas.
Peak oil is dead, we have so much cheap gas we're converting it into oil. Or converting technologies dependent on oil-derivatives to run on gas. So we have 300-700 years longer to find alternatives to digging up hydrocarbons.
If you think we won't have developed better energy technology in 700 years time, then we don't deserve to survive.
"Peak oil is dead, we have so much cheap gas we're converting it into oil. Or converting technologies dependent on oil-derivatives to run on gas. So we have 300-700 years longer to find alternatives to digging up hydrocarbons."
If there is that much shale gas then it needs to be banned, or else we'll face CO2 levels in the atmosphere crossing 2000ppm.
@NomNomNom.
"If there is that much shale gas then it needs to be banned, or else we'll face CO2 levels in the atmosphere crossing 2000ppm."
Quite possibly. Unfortunately, as far as I know, no climate model can yet predict what that will actually mean to any degree of certainty. That's largely because no climate model has yet predicted anything that has come to pass!!
That's not to say this might not be a problem, but we have no idea how much of a problem it could be. So, saying this is a problem and must be stopped at all costs is just as silly as saying it isn't a problem. Hence, we should do what we can to reduce emissions whilst ensuring the impact is not devastating on people. This includes keeping power at a reasonable price to enable people to heat their homes.
One thing I've never understood is that newer homes are far more energy efficient than older ones. Even after making all the energy saving changes you can, they rarely come to modern standards. Why then, doesn't the government offer incentives to knock down old homes and replace them with new? I know it happens to an extent naturally, but this is exactly the same sort of idea as paying someone to scrap their old car and buy a newer one; just on a larger scale.
"That's not to say this might not be a problem, but we have no idea how much of a problem it could be. So, saying this is a problem and must be stopped at all costs is just as silly as saying it isn't a problem."
"we have no idea how much of a problem it could be"
That's the reason to stop it. Same rules as the pharmaceutical industry. You don't inject a large dose of a potent drug into a system if you have no idea how much of a problem it could be.
One thing I've never understood is that newer homes are far more energy efficient than older ones. Even after making all the energy saving changes you can, they rarely come to modern standards. Why then, doesn't the government offer incentives to knock down old homes and replace them with new?
For one: That would be an affront to architectural history and good taste. Obviously not everyone agrees, but some do.
For two: There's a large energy expenditure in demolishing an existing home and building a new one, particularly when the full lifecycle costs are taken into account. (You have a house's worth of decomposing waste added to your landfill; you have fuel consumed by construction equipment; you have gypsum mined for wallboard; ...)
For three: There's still a huge margin to be reclaimed in retrofitting older homes with energy-saving technology, to the extent that the owners are willing to compromise architectural integrity, and (at least here in the US) government incentives for such things are modest. It'd be a lot cheaper for the public purse to claim that low-hanging fruit first.
@Michael Wojcik.
If you read my post, I compared my comment of paying subsidies for knocking down old houses and building new, to paying a subsidy for scrapping old cars and building new.
So, your first point applies to car srappage as well. Equally, so does your second point. Third point doesn't really. The other advantage though, is that it will stimulate the economy as well as infrastructure investment.
If there is that much shale gas then it needs to be banned, or else we'll face CO2 levels in the atmosphere crossing 2000ppm.
Mere conjecture. Plus, if this is such a big issue then why aren't AGW believers living in tents and doing their laundry with washboards, staying off the internet, staying away from airports (Prince Charles, Al Gore *cough*, *cough*) etc?
If the rising CO2 levels is really that scary then I don't understand why practically all AGW believers are doing nothing about it. Does riding your bike to work, staying off planes, really make any difference? It's always token gestures, with vague and doubtful climate benefits, i.e. trying to buy locally sourced food.
If action were actually needed, masses of believers would be abandoning the towns and setting up low carbon communes or something to show that they actually believe their own spiel.
Man has caused CO2 in the atmosphere to accelerate upwards from about 290ppm to 400ppm today. Current rate of CO2 increase is about 2ppm per year.
For as long as we continue to burn oil, gas and coal CO2 will continue climbing.
Fortunately there's peak oil which puts a lid on us. 1000ppm at the most.
But if you argue there is no peak oil because "shale gas", then there's no lid.
"if this is such a big issue then why aren't AGW believers living in tents and doing their laundry with washboards,"
seriously?
As somebody has brought nasa up lets also remember that three things nasa openly admit they are only just beginning to get a basic understanding of and are decades of research away from being able to grasp sufficiently their interaction with the rest of the ecosystem to outline and predict their effects are
Clouds, the solar cycles and outputs and the deepsea flows and currents
All of which are MAJOR climate drivers and all of which NASA a very pro AGW organisation (because its giving thema huge chunk of their funding) admits they have a very basic understanding of because of only recently (in data terms) had the ability to watch and monitor them in detail
So to put it into perspective niether the pro nor anti AGW crowd "knows" what is happening, NASA doesnt know what is happening, but everyone is wildly speculating and all with their own bias and justification much of which (on both sides) is driven by money
What we DO know however is that ice melts and raises water levels. We "could" be speeding this process up and most probably are to some extent, but how much impact we are having isnt known by EITHER side as it is a natural and somewhat sporadic and non linear process naturally
We also know that at least one other large glacier claimed to be melting because of AGW actually turned out to be melting because of natural erosion of the sea bet it was sitting on which should surely give at least some pause for breath
Although I can understand some of the frantic panic of the pro AGW side of the arguement they are also guilty of the things they accuse the anti AGW side of like selectively seeing what suits them as the main push behind the pro agw lobby is politically based rather than scientific but the politicians hold the academic purse strings which immediate sets a tone to academic stance irrespective of the actual facts on a topic
It "may" turn out that in 100 years by which time very little of a catastrophic nature will have happened btw we find out that AGW has noticeably sped up the natural pattern of global warming, or merely that we "might" have done that as natural spikes and troughs in such things can last centuries by themselves. Hell, we could find we are having a mini ice age in a hundred years too such is our current ability to model the climate
But we ARE already making improvements, we ARE already producing greener versions of our technologies, we ARE already being taxed to more than sufficient amounts IF governments didnt waste that money on expenses and flying themselves around the world every 5 minutes or funding puff piece biased research
We SHOULD tackle pollution and waste not because of doom and gloom nonsense but because it makes sense, And we are doing so.
What we shouldnt do though is to get caught up in (as yet) unproven and unproveable hysteria and as a knee jerk reaction throw the worlds better economies into decline by excessive and unjustified panic measures to raise more tax to keep feeding the ever growing self serving pro agw academic machine
We "could" have stopped world hunger, provided fresh water, healthcare and education for the entire planet for a lot less than we have already spent on not trying to counteract global warming, but PURELY on trying to prove its man made and still had billions left over according to WHO figures
Surely those are far more worthwhile uses for money? Surely dealing with a known and actual problem that we CAN fix right now is better than spending that money on academic navel gazing not into whether the planet is or has been till recently "warming" but purely into what if any percentage of that is man made?
So far the examination of possible AGW portions to any warming that might be occuring has killed quite literally millions of people and continues to do so by diverting money to something that really needs to wait for nasa to get a better understanding of the major climate drivers. Because right now they arent sure if a rise in temperature would cause more cloud cover which in turn would self regulate or not. They claim they need a decade or more of extra research
Meanwhile millions die on a monthly basis because of a lack of food, fresh water and healthcare.......
I am not saying we should completely ignore the possibility of AGW, but simply that we should maybe shift focus. Sort out pollution, greener energy sources, more sustainable living because they make sense and not have an almost religious style zealotry and paranoid draconian approach trying to enforce a regime when its own science is still incomplete
Because I wouldnt like to live in a world where in 50 years we find out that billions of people have been forced into or to remain in abject poverty and restrictive lives whilst the politicians, the rich and of course the academics wer e living the life of riley only to hear that mans contribution to warming wasnt as much as feared and that all that suffering was pre emptive which IS as much as the pro AGW lobby will disagree with it still a 50/50 chance
I honestly have to admit that I do not know what is causing GW and I do not really care that much, tbh. I am waiting on the scientists to finish their studies, analyses etc and come up with a globally accepted cause to GW. However, I think we need to address environmental awareness because we cannot go on the way we going on today, especially since we have a great number of Chinese and Indians joining the club of globetrotters, airco owners, and car drivers and our traditional energy supplies are finite (coal, gaz, oil, uranium).
Centralized energy production is silly, no ifs buts or maybes, plain silly, because we lose most of the gains during energy transport. You are gonna ask why do we have centralized energy production ? Because it is a very easy way for the big guyz to milk us lot.
What we need is humongous amounts of funds for research into solar energy as that is the way of the future. We are currently losing ~60% of energy in solar cells, a lot of it is heat - note that up until recently, that figure was closer to 90%, but some uni-guyz in Holland managed to improve the efficiency by ~40% (for the lucky ones with calculators, a rarity on el'reg: yes, I am generous when I am saying ~60%). We are talking a small underfunded public uni, here, not some multi-continent cooperation team burning through $ trillions working on fusion - the fusion scientists even admit that they have no idea if it is economically feasible to produce commercial electricity with the technology as they have yet find out how to build the box that will house a replica of the sun. They admit that even if it were feasible, fusion plants will not be around for another century at the very earliest.
Before I get any BS from the blokes on here, I have been to several public meetings, talking to the most eminent scientists who work over at ITER which is only a few miles away from where I live, sorry, you will have to keep your clueless gutters shut.
As for the commentards who are badmouthing Greenpeace, I am not, have never been a member/sponsor etc of Greenpeace, I think you are not very thankful, because they have been blowing whistles for quite some time on issues that affect us all - I do not agree with all they say, by several orders of magnitude even, but these guyz have managed to bring REAL problems to light. Like French nuke waste ending up on open-air storage facilities in Russia or the threat of GMO's. Although Greenpeace screws up regularly, they are useful. I know who funds them and all that shit of course, but still, occasionally they blow the right whistle and as such are needed; I just smile and ignore their, admittedly frequent, BS.
"I honestly have to admit that I do not know what is causing GW and I do not really care that much, tbh. I am waiting on the scientists to finish their studies, analyses etc and come up with a globally accepted cause to GW."
You will surely wait a long time: scientists never "finish their studies". They do, however form consensuses (which may shift over time). The current consensus (by any reasonable definition of the word) in climate science is clearly that (a) global warming is a reality and (b) man is a major cause thereof.
Consensuses? Surely we can agree on consensi?
Cool! Can we have a prescriptivist/descriptivist flame war dessert to top off our AGW one?
(Neoclassical language-change denialists ignoring our language-change models that clearly show an annual rise of 2% in common English plural forms over imported Romance ones mutter mutter...)
Michael, certainly, I’d be happy to oblige. Should one prefer to preserve the original Latin plural form for consensus in English, then it is essential to know that it is a fourth declension noun in Latin — which means that the Latin plural for consensus is consensus (albeit with a long u in the plural, so add a macron to taste).
I'm happy to stand aside from the debate on whether or not our burning fossil fuels means The End of Civilisation As We Know It (I won't be around to see it so I don't particularly care.)
What I don't understand (well, one of the myriad of things I don't understand) is how the answer to it all is to make me pay more taxes.
Anyone care to help me?
Hyperbole and uneducated rant will not convince others of your point.
@Wanderingone56ish - they just want a further deepening of their reach into your pockets for the purpose of moving third world nations up to first world status; feeding and clothing them so they breed like rabbits and don't (magically) contribute anything to the problem....
It will cumulatively. A few mm a year is a few cm per decade...
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/05/3254771/sea-level-reduce-gdp-10-percent/
New research predicts that by 2100, damage from flooding and rising seas could cost the world almost a tenth of its economy.
According to the IPCC’s projections, sea level will rise 25 to 123 centimeters, depending on whether humanity does a lot to tackle climate change or just coasts along with business-as-usual. Using those models, the researchers concluded 0.2 to 4.6 percent of the world’s population will be flooded annually by the end of the century, resulting in annual losses of 0.3 to 9.3 percent of global GDP.
For reference, 5 percent of the world’s population in 2100 could mean 600 million people — many of whom will live in deeply impoverished regions like southern Asia. As for GDP, 9.3 percent of that could be over $100 trillion
We have been pumping from aquafiers for years. The water tables are measurablely dropping. Where does that water go? Does it not raise sea levels?
If we are so worried about sea level increase - why don't you advocate the reduction in pumping from aquafers?
It is always the AGW that is to blame...... AGW that has yet to be proved. Explain why Mars, Venus and the moons of Jupiter are also heating up! CO2 - not likely.
"The water tables are measurablely dropping."
erm, nope. Watertables in the UK are higher than they have ever been since measurements started...
"AGW that has yet to be proved"
That was proved to the satisfaction of pretty much every scientist on the planet a decade or so ago. Not in anyway in question any more - AGW is happening.
The only unresolved question is how much of climate change is due to AGW. The current scientific positon is that we are 99% sure that the majority of climate warming is due to AGW.
"Explain why Mars, Venus and the moons of Jupiter are also heating up"
No warming has been observed on Jupiter or it's moons or of Venus.
This is a round-up of the planets said by sceptics to be experiencing climate change:
Jupiter: the notion that Jupiter is warming is actually based on predictions, since no warming has actually been observed. Climate models predict temperature increases along the equator and cooling at the poles. It is believed these changes will be catalysed by storms that merge into one super-storm, inhibiting the planet’s ability to mix heat. Sceptical arguments have ignored the fact this is not a phenomenon we have observed, and that the modelled forcing is storm and dust movements, not changes in solar radiation.
Mars: the notion that Mars is warming came from an unfortunate conflation of weather and climate. Based on two pictures taken 22 years apart, assumptions were made that have not proved to be reliable. There is currently no evidence to support claims that Mars is warming at all.
Neptune: observations of changes in luminosity on the surface of both Neptune and its largest moon, Triton, have been taken to indicate warming caused by increased solar activity. In fact, the brightening is due to the planet’s seasons changing, but very slowly. Summer is coming to Neptune’s southern hemisphere, bringing more sunlight, as it does every 164 years.
Pluto: the warming exhibited by Pluto is not really understood. Pluto’s seasons are the least understood of all: its existence has only been known for a third of its 248 -year orbit, and it has never been visited by a space probe. The ‘evidence’ for climate change consists of just two observations made in 1988 and 2002. That’s equivalent to observing the Earth’s weather for just three weeks out of the year. Various theories suggest its highly elliptical orbit may play a part, as could the large angle of its rotational axis. One recent paper suggests the length of Pluto’s orbit is a key factor, as with Neptune. Sunlight at Pluto is 900 times weaker than it is at the Earth.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
