I wish that scientists could come to agreement on the facts, even if they don't agree on the conclusions. The following are excerpts from an NPR story in April 2012 so I doubt it is a climate change skeptical source.

Just a few years ago, it seemed that the Himalayas were on the brink of disaster. The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made alarming claims about the fate of all that ice. Jeffrey Kargel at the University of Arizona describes it stating "One page had the most egregious errors you could imagine, just one after another, including the claim that the glaciers would disappear by 2035". The claim was dead wrong. The error put a lot of egg on the face of the IPCC.

"Some areas of the Himalaya and the nearby ranges such as the Karakoram are seeing shrinking ice masses, shrinking glaciers," Kargel says. "But some actually are increasing in mass.

Tobias Bolch of the University of Zurich states “Consider the Karakoram, home to more than 40 percent of the region's glaciers, There, the glaciers — at least during the last 10 years — are gaining mass,".

Confidence in climate science is eroding over errors such as these in Asia.

Scientists studying Himalayan glaciers report that glaciers in the western Himalayas are actually adding mass. If the whole place is warming so much, why isn't the western area melting like the eastern area?

Today's news from the UK:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2259942/The-crazy-climate-change-obsession-thats-Met-Office-menace.html

The UK MET (meteorology) agency has revised its claims and forecasts again, this time admitting there has been no global warming since 1998, nor will there be more warming until at least 2017. Beyond that, they're guessing.

And also in the climate change news this week, long-term measurement data for SoCal shows that sea levels in SoCal have been dropping for quite some time as well.

Generally, sea levels rise in western portions of oceans such as east Asian coasts (and west Pacific atolls) and NE USA, and decline in eastern portions, such as west coast USA.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2013 05:10PM by hello.

Any time you see the claim that "global warming" has not happened in the past "x" years, you can be sure they are doing some statistical bs.

They "always" pick the year 1998. Why, you ask? 1998 was an exceptionally hot year, even within the context of global warming. If they pick 1997, or 1999, or any other year, then it is happening.

Another way that this is fudged, is by saying statistically, global warming has not happened in the past 10 years. The reason this works is that the rate or warming vs the yearly variability is not high enough that it can be proven statistically within 10 years. 11 years, yes; 10 years no.

While there's no doubt that exaggerated, sensational claims about climate change get propagated all the time, there IS consensus in the scientific community about the fact that the planet's temperature is increasing, and that human intervention is a significant factor.

But there is a great deal of hyperbole in some of the claims that get thrown around. It goes from "there will be significant negative consequences," to "the apocalypse is nigh."

So no, I hardly think confidence in climate science should be eroding, merely in the sensationalism of the fringe of it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2013 03:56AM by doubtisavirtue.

doubtisavirtue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While there's no doubt that exaggerated,
> sensational claims about climate change get
> propagated all the time, there IS consensus in the
> scientific community about the fact that the
> planet's temperature is increasing, and that human
> intervention is a significant factor.
>
> But there is a great deal of hyperbole in some of
> the claims that get thrown around. It goes from
> "there will be significant negative consequences,"
> to "the apocalypse is nigh."
>
> So no, I hardly think confidence in climate
> science should be eroding, merely in the
> sensationalism of the fringe of it.


BULLSHIT......consensus my ass.......stop with the consensus nonsense. just because you keep repeating it doesnt make it so.

Wishing it not to be so, won't make it not so.

of the earth are rising steadily. One needs only to look at the data and graphs from NOAA to see this with one's own eyes.
The temperature graph begins its current steep climb in the 1960's.

"A study by the Universities of California and Potsdam found that the Karakoram glaciers are mostly stagnating,[6] because, unlike in the Himalayas, many Karakoram glaciers are covered in a layer of rubble which has insulated the ice from the warmth of the sun. Where there is no such insulation, the rate of retreat is high.[7]
Overall, the glaciers in this region seem to be enlarging somewhat, say researchers publishing in the journal Nature Geoscience.["

so are you saying there is no global warming??? even though we have had the hottest 10 years on record in this century alone

" • Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

• The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.

• The Arctic is feeling the effects the most. Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004.

• Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.

• Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later.

read more from Nat geo:"http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming_2.html
I also can get more sources for this discussion if needed...
just amazed!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2013 03:17PM by bignevermo.

Seriously? An opinion piece from a newspaper columnist?

Robinson might want to give a call to his friends at the UK MET office, for some recent data.

What did Mr. Robinson say that is factually incorrect?

Humans are dumping 33 Billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. That is 1048 tons of CO2 PER SECOND.

Here is some information about CO2 and its effect on Global Warming.

http://mb-soft.com/public3/global.html

Notice the moving "CO2 in the Earth's Atmosphere Clock" on the first page. Notice the graph of Graph of Carbon Dioxide Concentration 1000 AD - present.

How can anyone with a modicum of intelligence deny Global Warming?

Any "facts" you can produce. I can't think of a single instance where he has been wrong in anything he haw written. Then there's that Pulitzer he has on his mantle...

Joseph Smith appeared to me in a vision last night telling me that global warming is real.

Now I'm really confused on all this climate bs.

lol..did he have a flaming sword? Horney Joe was referring to himself, but he didn't say "global", he "me globes are warming", which means continues to be horney in the hereafter which should be of no surprise to anyone.

Saviorself, quit telling us the truth! Ouch! We don't want to hear it. I could barely bring myself to click this thread. Gloom and doom fits nicely with how my brain operates. I think about stockpiling goods and food, but then I dump those plans and just think about which drugs I'll be needing and in what amounts...

http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming

Scientific societies and scientists have released statements and studies showing the growing consensus on climate change science. A common objection to taking action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions has been uncertainty within the scientific community on whether or not global warming is happening and if it is caused by humans. However, there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it.

Visit the above website to access links to documents and statements attesting to this consensus.

Note to poster "hello". It is time for you to pull you head out of your a** and learn the facts from real climate scientists.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2013 12:45PM by saviorself.

So I will post a link myself.
This is from NOAA; take a look at the graphs:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

Just a childish article on what CO2 is. We know that. If you want some education, go and read the NOAA link:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

OK, but it is true that plants take in CO2, that's what that they breathe, they give us oxygen back. Basic biology.

http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/2009/01/co2-climate-facts.html

It has graphs and sources too.

We all know this! We learned it in the fourth grade!

Exactly.

Sorry, It's about CO2, I thought that is what we were discussing here.

average surface and atmospheric temperatures over a number of years.
That is what we are discussing.

From all my reading the over abundance of CO2 due to the human footprint has been given as the reason global warming, my mistake for bringing it up.

READ THE ARTICLES WITHIN MY LINKS!

You are just misinformed...From where do you get most of you "news"?

just amazed!

is a realiable source of scientific information???
Compared to NOAA???

HEY CYNTHIA... your blog says CO2 is not a pollutant...I aint sure about that...but IT IS A GREENHOUSE GAS!! Methane too so stop with all the poopopo before you kill us all! :)

just astounded!
"OH EDITED FOR THIS:A variety of businesses fund CEI, but the fossil-fuel industry is one of their main contributors. Exxon documents (PDF File) show that the company gave $270,000 to CEI in 2004 alone. $180,000 of that was earmarked for "global climate change and global climate change outreach." Exxon has contributed over $1.6 million to CEI since 1998. Other oil companies, such as Amoco and Texaco, also contribute to CEI, through the American Petroleum Institute. So, it is safe to mentally replace the "paid for by the Competitive Enterprise Institute" tag on the ads with, "paid for by the fossil fuel industry."

WOW THE MORE i READ..."
"Our result(FROM THE ARTICLE CYNTHIA MAY BE USING) is only for East Antarctica. Moreover, we make it clear that our results are for the interior and it is well known that the edges are losing mass." In a University of Missouri press release issued May 19, Dr. Davis states: "These television ads are a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate. They are selectively using only parts of my previous research to support their claims. They are not telling the entire story to the public."
DAMN MORE PESKY FACTS:"The fossil fuel industry points out in their ads that carbon dioxide it essential for both plant life and human life. Is it wrong, then, to label carbon dioxide as a pollutant? The definition of pollution in Webster's dictionary is "to make physically impure or unclean: Befoul, dirty." By that definition, carbon dioxide is not pollution. However, Webster's also has the definition: "to contaminate (an environment) esp. with man-made waste." Carbon dioxide is a waste gas produced by fossil fuel combustion, so can be classified as man-made waste. One can also make the case that carbon dioxide is contaminating the environment, since increased CO2 from burning fossil fuels has already harmed sea life. Carbon dioxide, when dissolved in sea water, is deadly to shell-building microorganisms that form an important part of the food chain in some cold ocean regions. The extra CO2 lowers the pH and make the water too acidic for these organisms to build their shells."
IT THIS SCENARIO THAT SCARES ME THE MOST...THE ACIDIFICATION OF THE EARTHS OCEANS!!
SOURCE:http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/cei.asp



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2013 03:28PM by bignevermo.

I don't think humans have enough knowledge about climactic change to form reliable conclusions. Lots of theories, not enough proof.

For one thing, the Earth has been much warmer and much colder at various times in the past - long before humans showed up.

+1

What do you mean by "humans don't have enough..."???
If not humans, who does???

meaning, "more study is needed".

between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and temperature.
In fact, the two graphs had the same shape over the same time period! There is a correlation. We can say that now, even without "further study". I don't see where there's anything to argue with. Facts are facts. Can we ascertain more facts over time? Of course. What's your point?

I wasn't arguing whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But the long-term effects aren't known. As I posted below, some theories state the Earth's natural processes will correct itself. You don't read about those in the media that loves to hype.

the problem outcast is that since the industrial revolution the temps have risen in an alarming manner...yeah to be sure there have been cycles of cooling and warming...but over much greater time spans... millennia...and now we see these changes in a much quicker timeline...it isnt a question of IF we are altering the climate...but how much of the warming is due to humans...if you want to argue the climate change issue thats were I would focus if I were you!
just warming up!!!

Indeed it has, but as you noted it was long before humans showed up. Indeed, through much of earths prehistory the climate was unhospitable and wouldn't have sustained human life. So what?

The concern is human survival. The planet will also continue without us for a long time after we're gone. But who cares?

What I care about is taking care of this rocky orb in such a manner that it is able to sustain human life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2013 02:28PM by Richard the Bad.

You assume that humans have the ability to reverse whatever process are already at work.

I was a meteorology major back in the '80s. We were discussing this problem back then. Some theorized that as the earth warms and ice packs melt, that the atmosphere will become more saturated and produce more cloud cover, which will reflect more sunlight and thereby cause the climate to cool.

The physics involved in atmospheric processes is so incredibly complicated.

these processes.
We certainly have the ability to affect the climate. That's pretty well established.

well as you know meteorology is not climatology...but i respect that you have a better than average working knowledge of atmospheric phenominon...but...the science in climatology now is so much better than when you were schooled...me it has been since the 70's since my last meteorology class...but more to the point...what will happen if what you say happens...you kow we dont do anything and all those clouds do start a cooling cycle...what then if that brings us into anothe mini or full ice age? That we cant stop...better to address the situation now than when we go are ready to go over the "cliff"!

alright warmed up now!