Global Warming...is their scientific consensus that it is man made? [Archive]

Sundancefisher

01-16-2010, 10:03 AM

http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/CliSci2008.pdf

rather than slop my opinion...please read and then we can discuss the facts as it pertains to actual scientific consensus.

I have heard a lot and as one of the main shots at those that don't believe it yet...that we are off base cause all the scientists believe in man made global warming.

This study...will open some eyes.

Cheers

Sun

This is my personal summary of the study

Question 10...the majority don't believe climate science is value-neutral. That implies they see bias.

Question 11 a...they don't believe they have enough data to make an adequate interpretation

Question 11 c...there is no consensus on the theoretical understanding of climate change. If the majority don't understand...yet they believe in man made global warming...this is a clear disconnect.

Question 12 c...there is no consensus on understanding water vapors effects on atmospheric models

Question 12 d...there is far from consensus on the effects of clouds on atmospheric models.

Question 12 e...there is far from consensus on effects of precipitation

Question 12 f...there is far from consensus on the effects of atmospheric convection

Questions 13 to 15 d...there is far from consensus on over all effects of oceans on average of the questions

Questions 16 then go on to ask how the models do when using the parameters that we just discussed. Funny how they believe strongly in the models...but you don't see that strength in the data. How can that be. Usually you think...crap in...crap out. Questionable data in...questionable data out.

Question 16d ...somewhat says they don't believe long term >50 year predictions ...but they seem to believe 10 year predictions (which have never come true yet on the models)...very interesting.

Questions 16 e to j...they can't prediction precipitation or sea level rise

Question 17 d...they can't model temperatures for the next 50 years

Question 17 (all)...over all they can't model regionally with any accuracy.

Question 18...Paleogeology is extremely important...yet I can't see any reference to it when discussing warming today in context with warming since the ice age.

Question 20...everyone agrees that global warming or change in climate is occuring...this study however says only a few doubt that.

Question 21 ...is interesting given their responses to above questions...is there emotion involved or maybe while in their scientific world they see no facts supporting it but when they hear about it in the media...other scientists say they believe they feel compelled to trust in the group mind...versus the data? Paul can answer is that happens :-)

Question 24...climate change has not created any natural disasters.

Question 25 a...people can't see any significant impacts on their own country from climate change...near term 25 b they see some long term

Question 26 a and b...more effects to other countries (they are probably really thinking of only low lying countries and effects of sea level rise)

Question 27 b...but then they say there are also positive effects to other countries

Question 28 a...this expresses concern for plants and animals...yet since the last ice age...life has gone on for these species.

Question 29...no clear strong consensus from the experts on due we pay to fix it or learn to live with it.

Question 30-35...science should decide best approach to either mitigate or adapt.

Question 36...scientists say to force any decision on population

Question 37...why do they say climate change is a political decision...very interesting...gotta think on that one.

Question 38 - 41 ...most believe the IPCC is doing a good job

Question 43...not a super strong endorsement of how papers are handled

Question 49...only 35% of scientists refer to climate change as primarily anthropomorphic ...that is interesting

Question 52...the scientists hate fear mongering studies

Question 55...environmental activists also twist the story...

Question 56...people that don't believe in man made global warming are having no effect on the process...

Question 57...fear mongering scientists are getting average play with the policy makers

Question 58...fear mongering scientists are getting lots of extra play with the media.

Question 59...non believers are getting play with the media (I don' see it in main stream...I wonder if this is only a perception rather than reality. Climate Gate was hard pressed to hit main stream)

Question 61-62...better communication with the public is required

Question 63...they seem to believe that blogs are valuable...surprising...

Question 64...quality of papers is just okay...not a lot of improvement in quality

Question 68 and 69...not sure what to make of this.

Question 71...many have leanings towards environmental activism either moderate to high. That troubles me that they may not have an open mind.

Overall...There is definitely no consensus in the core data...but their is in core beliefs...

Sundancefisher

01-16-2010, 06:45 PM

The BBC is considered pro global warming

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8462890.stm

Met Office's debate over longer-term forecasts
By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News

Met Office (SPL)
The Met Office's seasonal forecasts rely partly on statistical projections

The UK Met Office is debating what to do with its long-term and seasonal forecasting after criticism for failing to predict extreme weather.

Some experts say the Met Office should stop longer-term forecasting because it damages the organisation's reputation.

Others maintain that communication of the forecasts must be improved.

The Met Office has been criticised for failing to predict in its seasonal forecasts the UK would suffer this cold winter or the last three wet summers.

After being rapped for its now notorious "barbecue summer" press release, the winter forecast was expressed in probabilistic terms, with a 66% likelihood that the winter would be warmer than average and a one in seven chance that it would be colder.

The Met Office has now admitted to BBC News that its annual global mean forecast predicted temperatures higher than actual temperatures for nine years out of the last 10.

This "warming bias" is very small - just 0.05C. And the Met Office points out that the variance between the forecast and the actual temperature is within its own stated margins of error.

These annual forecasts are not awful - they accurately predicted two of the cooler years, for instance. But they are not great, either
Professor Andrew Watson, UEA

Paul Hudson: Long-range forecasts

Professor Chris Folland from the Met Office said a re-analysis of weather science might even show that the actual temperature measurements have under-recorded recent warming - making the Met Office forecast even more accurate than it appears.

But some scientists contacted by BBC News say the organisation needs to discover why there is a consistent bias towards warming, however slight.

Andrew Watson, a Royal Society environment fellow from the University of East Anglia's school of environmental sciences, said: "These annual forecasts are not awful - they accurately predicted two of the cooler years, for instance. But they are not great, either.

"The warming bias is admittedly very small - but the Met Office has to address why it is there. It will certainly be very difficult to get rid of - they can't just knock a bit off their forecast - that would be totally unscientific."

Rain or shine?

Professor Watson said the warming bias - first mooted on Paul Hudson's BBC weather blog - should not affect trust in the Met Office's climate projections, which are based on a different methodology.

But he said the medium-term projections were undermining public faith in the Met Office overall.

"I don't know why the Met Office bothers with these annual forecasts - [these forecasts] have a very low reputation in meteorology and climatology. No one really believes them anyway. They should just stop doing them," he said.

The climate scientist Mike Hulme - respected in many quarters of the climate debate - agreed on the need for change.

"These sorts of seasonal forecasts are of dubious value to the public," Professor Hulme, also of UEA, explained.

"It would probably be much better if the Met Office didn't attempt to persuade the public that it can forecast annual temperature to two decimal places given uncertainties in forecasting and in the measurements themselves," he said.

Long and short of it

But Professor Stephen Mobbs, director of the National Centre for Atmospheric Science at Leeds University, said the warming bias in the annual prediction was a red herring.

"All models have biases and these are very small. It may be, as the Met Office suggests, that the observations are wrong, not the model."

But Professor Mobbs criticised the Met Office's communication of its forecasts. "The Met Office is a truly world-class organisation - we are lucky to have it," he said.

The University of Leeds researcher added: "They need to say that these longer-term forecasts are experimental and not use ridiculous phrases like 'barbecue summer' dreamed up by the communications people."

"When you see Met Office people on TV now they have a look of panic - and they dig themselves deeper into a hole. The short term forecasts are excellent. They should say the longer-term ones are highly uncertain, then keep modifying them.

"For some reason, the Met Office isn't telling the public what it knows about the weather for the next week - and what we ourselves can tell from looking at the Met Office data."

Weather and climate

Professor Mobbs agreed that the experimental nature of annual forecasting should not undermine climate forecasting.

'If you run the (computer) model one year it might not come out right but over 50-100 years you will be able to predict that the climate is getting warmer on average but not if, say, 2031 will be a warmer or a colder year.'

Some staff at the Met Office itself are angry that seasonal forecasting is damaging its reputation. Sources confirm that the organisation is debating how to react to public criticism on the issue.

In recent years the Met Office has increasingly expressed its forecasts in probabilistic language, hedged with error bars.

But Matt Huddlestone, who deals with public understanding at the Met Office, told me that the media constantly over-simplified the forecasts to remove the probabilities. "I actually think the public are capable of understanding probabilities much more than some of the papers think," he said.

Others see the problem as one of forecasting rather than communication. Piers Corbyn, the independent weather forecaster, predicted the winter cold many months ago, to the surprise of many meteorologists. He says the Met Office failed to warn of extreme events in their seasonal forecasts because they are employing a computer model based on the assumption of man-made climate change.

Public confidence

But the Met Office's seasonal and annual forecasts rely partly on statistical projections, not just computer modelling.

And many other meteorologists mistrust Mr Corbyn himself because he refuses to publish his scientific methods. I have been asking him for several months to offer independent corroboration of his forecasting successes but none has been supplied.

Some other forecasters say he has major forecasting successes but equally large failures which he does not mention.

I have been discussing with the Royal Statistical Society, the Royal Meteorological Society and the Public Weather Service whether an index can be created comparing the records of all reputable forecasters making weather projections in the UK.

A weather index could allow the public to see over the years who is really getting it right over long-term weather.

In the meantime, the Met Office has to make difficult decisions. Some commentators say that if they stay in the long-term weather game and trip up again, they may be pilloried. If they withdraw, they may be accused of losing faith in their methodology - and public confidence in science could be eroded - whether that is fair or not.

Many researchers are likely to feel that they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Sundancefisher

01-19-2010, 10:02 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8468358.stm

UN climate body admits 'mistake' on Himalayan glaciers
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website

Satellite image of Himalayas (SPL)
Neither satellites nor ground observations give a complete picture

The vice-chairman of the UN's climate science panel has admitted it made a mistake in asserting that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) included the date in its 2007 assessment of climate impacts.

A number of scientists have recently disputed the 2035 figure, and Jean-Pascal van Ypersele told BBC News that it was an error and would be reviewed.

But he said it did not change the broad picture of man-made climate change.

The issue, which BBC News first reported on 05 December, has reverberated around climate websites in recent days.

It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing
Georg Kaser, University of Innsbruck

Himalayas glacier deadline 'wrong'

Some commentators maintain that taken together with the contents of e-mails stolen last year from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, it undermines the credibility of climate science.

Dr van Ypersele said this was not the case.

"I don't see how one mistake in a 3,000-page report can damage the credibility of the overall report," he said.

"Some people will attempt to use it to damage the credibility of the IPCC; but if we can uncover it, and explain it and change it, it should strengthen the IPCC's credibility, showing that we are ready to learn from our mistakes."

Grey area

The claim that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 appears to have originated in a 1999 interview with Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, published in New Scientist magazine.

The figure then surfaced in a 2005 report by environmental group WWF - a report that is cited in the IPCC's 2007 assessment, known as AR4.

An alternative genesis lies in the misreading of a 1996 study that gave the date as 2350.

AR 4 asserted: "Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world... the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high."

Dr van Ypersele said the episode meant that the panel's reviewing procedures would have to be tightened.

Slow reaction?

The row erupted in India late last year in the run-up to the Copenhagen climate summit, with opposing factions in the government giving radically different narratives of what was happening to Himalayan ice.
Rajendra Pachauri
IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri has been criticised by Jairam Ramesh

In December, it emerged that four leading glaciologists had prepared a letter for publication in the journal Science arguing that a complete melt by 2035 was physically impossible.

"You just can't accomplish it," Jeffrey Kargel from the University of Arizona told BBC News at the time.

"If you think about the thicknesses of the ice - 200-300m thicknesses, in some cases up to 400m thick - and if you're losing ice at the rate of a metre a year, or let's say double it to two metres a year, you're not going to get rid of 200m of ice in a quarter of a century."

The row continues in India, with Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh calling this week for the IPCC to explain "how it reached the 2035 figure, which created such a scare".

Meanwhile, in an interview with the news agency AFP, Georg Kaser from the University of Innsbruck in Austria - who led a different portion of the AR4 process - said he had warned that the 2035 figure was wrong in 2006, before AR4's publication.

"It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing," he told AFP in an interview.

He said that people working on the Asia chapter "did not react".

He suggested that some of the IPCC's working practices should be revised by the time work begins on its next landmark report, due in 2013.

But its overall conclusion that global warming is "unequivocal" remains beyond reproach, he said.

bessiedog

01-19-2010, 10:15 PM

Here we have another crazy bushman blurting out his uniformed opinion for the hungry redneck masses...;):lol:;):lol:

GEEEEEZE! Someone keep this post archived. Sun I'm not gonna read this post until it gets super cold outside an my wife puts me in the doghouse.....

You could give this up ya know, if ya knitted instead, you'd of had a super sweater by now!;):lol:;):lol:

Good on you for the analysis....... sorry bout your social life though. I'm sure we can come up with some good dating sites for you.:lol::lol:

bd

Sundancefisher

01-20-2010, 08:10 AM

:tongue2:Here we have another crazy bushman blurting out his uniformed opinion for the hungry redneck masses...

GEEEEEZE! Someone keep this post archived. Sun I'm not gonna read this post until it gets super cold outside an my wife puts me in the doghouse.....

You could give this up ya know, if ya knitted instead, you'd of had a super sweater by now!

Good on you for the analysis....... sorry bout your social life though. I'm sure we can come up with some good dating sites for you.:lol::lol:

bd

LOL

Ouch. There is one of them stingers that people complain about on another thread :lol::lol:. Seems like pro "world is going to melt" guys tend to take information to the contrary very personal.

This uninformed opinion you mention is actually the IPCC admitting themselves...finally and getting covered by the BBC which is pro global warming theory.

I sincerely hope you don't get stuck in the dog house...but for those not interested in reading great...for those without the time to research...well this is current information.

Cheers and keep the wife happy. Mine has a bad cold ;)

Sun

P.S. Failure to discuss this and/or care less :zzz:about it regardless of your opinion is tantemount to being in total agreement to whatever gets shoved down our throats for policy.

I guess no one can say I did not try :rolleyes::tongue2:

duffy4

01-20-2010, 03:36 PM

Thanks for the information Sundancefisher.

People who look out the window and say "Its cold and snowing out so how can there be global warming." really make me laugh.

Here is something interesting:

I was on a tour of a glacier in New Zealand recently. The guide was talking about the glacier receding over a lot of years.

Then said that the glacier was now growing. As a result of climate change. As a result of GLOBAL WARMING.

Now that will really confuse bessiedog!

You have to think outside the block...I mean the box.

The winds that blow down across Australia are hotter than before. Which contributes to all the bush fires there. (unless you think that Al Gore and David Suzuki are running around setting them????) They blow out across the Tazman sea towards NZ. and because they are so hot and dry they pick up a lot of moisture. They hit the Southern Alps of western NZ and go up and mix with cooler air which causes precipitation (Snow) on the glaciers and that makes them grow.

So global warming is causing glaciers to grow in western NZ.

Grizzly Adams

01-20-2010, 04:06 PM

We visited the Tyrell museum a couple of weeks ago. Good place for those of you, who think the world follows our thoughts on instant gratification.:lol: Big poster there, states that there were periods of global warming up to 15,000 years long, between glaciations, so when you tell me glaciers have been retreating for a hundred or even 500 years, I say, so what.:D 1000 years ago, there was way less ice in Greenland. What happened?
Grizz

Rusty P. Bucket

01-20-2010, 04:09 PM

25 years ago the green types were gobbling in fright about impending ice ages. We know now that climates cycle with the sun and that they can change remarkably fast. We know that most of the 'science' behind this fad is junk and does not bear up to objective scientific scrutiny; and anyone that doesn't know that David Suzuki is a ****** probably shouldn't concern himself with science at all.

Global warming is about cash grabs by socialists and lefties. Thankfully this idiocy is finally starting to unravel with the scandals like 'Climategate' and now 'Glaciergate'.

Science is best left to scientists and not self proclaimed lefty intellectuals or similar poseurs.

Sundancefisher

01-20-2010, 04:25 PM

2008 mass balance data for US Glaciers (negative shrinking...positive growing)

USA
Columbia (2057) 960
Daniels 410
Easton 450
Emmons -630
Foss 180
Gulkana -181
Ice Worm -100
Lemon Creek 800
Lower Curtis 120
Lynch 510
Nisqually -1080
Noisy Creek -290
North Klawatti -220
Rainbow 650
Sandalee -140
Sholes 200
Silver 260
South Cascade -200
Taku 950
Wolverine 1300
Yawning 480

Norway

Norway
Aalfotbreen 690
Austdalsbreeen -70
Austre Broeggerbreen -130
Blomstolskar -1330
Breidalblikkbrea -300
Elisebreen -172
Engabreen 310
Graafjellsbreen -140
Graasubreen 90
Hansbreen 150
Hansebreen 250
Hardangerjoekulen 450
Hellstugubreen -60
Irenebreen -357
Kongsvegen 450
Langfjordjoekul -350
Midtre Lovenbreen -10
Nigardsbreen 1090
Rundvassbreen n.a.
Storbreen 110
Storglombreen n.a.
Svelgjabreen 730
Waldemarbreen -322

Canada for reference

Baby Glacier n.a.
Devon Ice Cap NW n.a.
Helm -2300
Meighen Ice Cap n.a.
Peyto -230
Place -490
White -778

I would have to ask a real statistician to review this data. For a couple of reasons.

Often you study that that is closest to you or easiest to access on a limited budget. There may be bias in there this sways the data one way or another. People have to realize there are probably 250,000 glaciers in the world. To argue a negative effect of anything based upon the 100 or so glaciers that are studied is arguably bad science. Maybe the effect is worse...maybe as mentioned above over all warmer temps by 0.25 degrees or 0.5 degrees is enough to cause glaciers to grow. So many facts can influence glacier growth. Temperature is just one. Rainfall, snowfall, wind, dust, salt, pollution, surface activity, subsurface tectonic and volcanic influences... Just because the face of a glacier is shrinking...does not mean the center mass is not growing. Glaciers have personalities..hard and unmoving like David Suzuki on the surface...but maybe full of cold water in the middle.

Still...a subset is better than nothing. Why can't satelites monitor total worldwide glacier mass year over year?

bessiedog

01-20-2010, 07:09 PM

Sundancefisher

01-20-2010, 08:20 PM

All jokes aside...

I think you did a great job! Super cudos to you. I really DO hope people read what you've done here. Information is critical.

I thank you for what you've done!

Like I've said b4... the jurys sortof out for me re: the co2 warming idea.

I still think we should get you on a dating site at least to give you a break from the screen, and reward you for your hard work.

cheers

bd

How about just baby sit all the kids so the wife and I can do a dinner and a movie:lol:

Tiger Woods proved dating is a leading cause of global warming via killing large trees.

Sundancefisher

01-21-2010, 12:40 PM

Cool new tech. Something like this could revolutize energy capture and storage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8471362.stm

************************************************** *****************

Ordinary cotton and polyester fabrics have been turned into batteries that retain their flexibility.

The demonstration is a boost to the nascent field of "wearable electronics" in which devices are integrated into clothing and textiles.

The approach is based on dipping fabrics in an "ink" of tiny tubes of carbon, and was first demonstrated last year on plain copier paper.

The new application to fabrics is reported in the journal Nano Letters.

"Wearable electronics represent a developing new class of materials... which allow for many applications and designs previously impossible with traditional electronics technologies," the authors wrote.

A number of research efforts in recent years have shown the possibility of electronics that can be built on flexible and even transparent surfaces - leading to the often-touted "roll-up display".

However, the integration of electronics into textiles has presented different challenges, in particular developing approaches that work with ordinary fabrics.

Now, Yi Cui and his team at Stanford University in the US has shown that their "ink" made of carbon nanotubes - cylinders of carbon just billionths of a metre across - can serve as a dye that can simply and cheaply turn a t-shirt into an "e-shirt".

The idea is the same as that outlined in their work with plain paper; the interwoven fibres of fabrics, like those of paper, are particularly suited to absorbing the nanotube ink, maintaining an electrical connection across the whole area of a garment.

Cloth is simply dipped into a batch of nanotube dye, and is then pressed, to thin and even out the coating.

The fabric maintains its properties even as it is stretched or folded. Even rinsing the samples in water and wringing them out does not change their electronic properties.

"Our approach is easy and low-cost while producing great performance," Professor Cui told BBC News.

"Fabrics and paper represent two technologies with a thousand-year-old history. We combined 'high-tech' - nanotechnology - with traditional 'low-tech' to produce new applications."

The next step is to integrate the approach with materials that store more energy, in order to create more useful batteries. By combining the approach with other electronic materials in the ink, the team believes even wearable solar cells are possible.

Sundancefisher

01-21-2010, 12:58 PM

It is articles like this that really question the science.

But who proves these articles? Those that promote CO2 induced global warming never seem to want to debate the issues. Generally the debater on both sides are less than...shall we say...credible.

But seriously...this article really brings home the question as to is the science being done correctly and who is protecting the process from an agenda on either side?

************************************************** **************

Scientists using selective temperature data, skeptics say
Richard Foot, Canwest News Service
Published: Wednesday, January 20, 2010
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

A weather research laboratory located on Ellesmere Island at Eureka, Nunavut.
Call it the mystery of the missing thermometers.

Two months after "climategate" cast doubt on some of the science behind global warming, new questions are being raised about the reliability of a key temperature database, used by the United Nations and climate change scientists as proof of recent planetary warming.

Two American researchers allege that U.S. government scientists have skewed global temperature trends by ignoring readings from thousands of local weather stations around the world, particularly those in colder altitudes and more northerly latitudes, such as Canada.

In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada.

Worse, only one station -- at Eureka on Ellesmere Island -- is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.

The Canadian government, meanwhile, operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, and more than 100 above the Arctic Circle, according to Environment Canada.

Yet as American researchers Joseph D'Aleo, a meteorologist, and E. Michael Smith, a computer programmer, point out in a study published on the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute, NOAA uses "just one thermometer [for measuring] everything north of latitude 65 degrees."

Both the authors, and the institute, are well-known in climate-change circles for their skepticism about the threat of global warming.

Mr. D'Aleo and Mr. Smith say NOAA and another U.S. agency, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) have not only reduced the total number of Canadian weather stations in the database, but have "cherry picked" the ones that remain by choosing sites in relatively warmer places, including more southerly locations, or sites closer to airports, cities or the sea -- which has a warming effect on winter weather.

Over the past two decades, they say, "the percentage of [Canadian] stations in the lower elevations tripled and those at higher elevations, above 300 feet, were reduced in half."

Using the agency's own figures, Smith shows that in 1991, almost a quarter of NOAA's Canadian temperature data came from stations in the high Arctic. The same region contributes only 3% of the Canadian data today.

Mr. D'Aleo and Mr. Smith say NOAA and GISS also ignore data from numerous weather stations in other parts of the world, including Russia, the U.S. and China.

They say NOAA collects no temperature data at all from Bolivia -- a high-altitude, landlocked country -- but instead "interpolates" or assigns temperature values for that country based on data from "nearby" temperature stations located at lower elevations in Peru, or in the Amazon basin.

The result, they say, is a warmer-than-truthful global temperature record.

"NOAA . . . systematically eliminated 75% of the world's stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler," the authors say. "The thermometers in a sense, marched towards the tropics, the sea, and to airport tarmacs."

The NOAA database forms the basis of the influential climate modelling work, and the dire, periodic warnings on climate change, issued by James Hanson, the director of the GISS in New York.

Neither agency responded to a request for comment Wednesday from Canwest News Service. However Hanson did issue a public statement on the matter earlier this week.

"NASA has not been involved in any manipulation of climate data used in the annual GISS global temperature analysis," he said. "The agency is confident of the quality of this data and stands by previous scientifically-based conclusions regarding global temperatures."

In addition to the allegations against NOAA and GISS, climate scientists are also dealing with the embarrassment this week of the false glacier-melt warning contained in the 2007 report of the UN Panel on Climate Change. That report said Himalayan glaciers are likely to disappear within three decades if current rates of melting continue.

This week, however, the panel admitted there is no scientific evidence to support such a claim.

The revelations come only two months after the "climategate" scandal, in which the leak or theft of thousands of e-mails -- private discussions between scientists in the U.S. and Britain -- showed that a group of influential climatologists tried for years to manipulate global warming data, rig the scientific peer-review process and keep their methods secret from other, contrary-minded researchers.

http://www.nationalpost.com/most-popular/story.html?id=2465231

Sundancefisher

01-25-2010, 02:56 PM

Is the IPCC facing criticism unfairly for having a political or ideological agenda versus being in charge of promoting fair research on the topic of Climate Change or more to the point "human CO2 induced Global warming".

To be fair let's forget the Climate Gate leaks which showed careful attempts to prevent review of past and current work through destruction of data and refusal to share information. We will also ignore the attempts of the IPCC to control what goes into scientific journals.

Instead let's discuss the issues of natural disasters.

http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/CliSci2008.pdf

Referring to the above link referencing scientific consensus on various issues...the widely accepted believe amongst climate researchers is that...

Question 24...climate change has not created any natural disasters.

Therefore what value does the IPCC have in showing video at Copenhagan that depicts a violent climate future for Earth? What value does it receive from putting these fears in peoples minds in summary documentation and in advice to polilticians world wide? My theory is that some are looking at the 2 billion dollars in yearly grant and research money not to mentioned operating budgets for the IPCC and sister outfits.

This is an interesting take on this ongoing issue...

************************************************** ********
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece

THE United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.

It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny — and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report's own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.

The claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is already affecting the severity and frequency of global disasters, has since become embedded in political and public debate. It was central to discussions at last month's Copenhagen climate summit, including a demand by developing countries for compensation of $100 billion (£62 billion) from the rich nations blamed for creating the most emissions.

Ed Miliband, the energy and climate change minister, has suggested British and overseas floods — such as those in Bangladesh in 2007 — could be linked to global warming. Barack Obama, the US president, said last autumn: "More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent."

Last month Gordon Brown, the prime minister, told the Commons that the financial agreement at Copenhagen "must address the great injustice that . . . those hit first and hardest by climate change are those that have done least harm".

The latest criticism of the IPCC comes a week after reports in The Sunday Times forced it to retract claims in its benchmark 2007 report that the Himalayan glaciers would be largely melted by 2035. It turned out that the bogus claim had been lifted from a news report published in 1999 by New Scientist magazine.

The new controversy also goes back to the IPCC's 2007 report in which a separate section warned that the world had "suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s".

It suggested a part of this increase was due to global warming and cited the unpublished report, saying: "One study has found that while the dominant signal remains that of the significant increases in the values of exposure at risk, once losses are normalised for exposure, there still remains an underlying rising trend."

The Sunday Times has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the climate body issued its report.

When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."

Despite this change the IPCC did not issue a clarification ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit last month. It has also emerged that at least two scientific reviewers who checked drafts of the IPCC report urged greater caution in proposing a link between climate change and disaster impacts — but were ignored.

The claim will now be re-examined and could be withdrawn. Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, a climatologist at the Universite Catholique de Louvain in Belgium, who is vice-chair of the IPCC, said: "We are reassessing the evidence and will publish a report on natural disasters and extreme weather with the latest findings. Despite recent events the IPCC process is still very rigorous and scientific."

The academic paper at the centre of the latest questions was written in 2006 by Robert Muir-Wood, head of research at Risk Management Solutions, a London consultancy, who later became a contributing author to the section of the IPCC's 2007 report dealing with climate change impacts. He is widely respected as an expert on disaster impacts.

Muir-Wood wanted to find out if the 8% year-on-year increase in global losses caused by weather-related disasters since the 1960s was larger than could be explained by the impact of social changes like growth in population and infrastructure.

Such an increase, coinciding with rising temperatures, might suggest that global warming was to blame. If proven this would be highly significant, both politically and scientifically, because it would confirm the many predictions that global warming will increase the frequency and severity of natural hazards.

In the research Muir-Wood looked at a wide range of hazards, including tropical cyclones, thunder and hail storms, and wildfires as well as floods and hurricanes.

He found from 1950 to 2005 there was no increase in the impact of disasters once growth was accounted for. For 1970-2005, however, he found a 2% annual increase which "corresponded with a period of rising global temperatures,"

Muir-Wood was, however, careful to point out that almost all this increase could be accounted for by the exceptionally strong hurricane seasons in 2004 and 2005. There were also other more technical factors that could cause bias, such as exchange rates which meant that disasters hitting the US would appear to cost proportionately more in insurance payouts.

Despite such caveats, the IPCC report used the study in its section on disasters and hazards, but cited only the 1970-2005 results.

The IPCC report said: "Once the data were normalised, a small statistically significant trend was found for an increase in annual catastrophe loss since 1970 of 2% a year." It added: "Once losses are normalised for exposure, there still remains an underlying rising trend."

Muir-Wood's paper was originally commissioned by Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, also an expert on disaster impacts, for a workshop on disaster losses in 2006. The researchers who attended that workshop published a statement agreeing that so far there was no evidence to link global warming with any increase in the severity or frequency of disasters. Pielke has also told the IPCC that citing one section of Muir-Wood's paper in preference to the rest of his work, and all the other peer-reviewed literature, was wrong.

He said: "All the literature published before and since the IPCC report shows that rising disaster losses can be explained entirely by social change. People have looked hard for evidence that global warming plays a part but can't find it. Muir-Wood's study actually confirmed that."

Mike Hulme, professor of climate change at the Tyndall Centre, which advises the UK government on global warming, said there was no real evidence that natural disasters were already being made worse by climate change. He said: “A proper analysis shows that these claims are usually superficial”

Such warnings may prove uncomfortable for Miliband whose recent speeches have often linked climate change with disasters such as the floods that recently hit Bangladesh and Cumbria. Last month he said: “We must not let the sceptics pass off political opinion as scientific fact. Events in Cumbria give a foretaste of the kind of weather runaway climate change could bring. Abroad, the melting of the Himalayan glaciers that feed the great rivers of South Asia could put hundreds of millions of people at risk of drought. Our security is at stake.”

Muir-Wood himself is more cautious. He said: "The idea that catastrophes are rising in cost partly because of climate change is completely misleading. "We could not tell if it was just an association or cause and effect. Also, our study included 2004 and 2005 which was when there were some major hurricanes. If you took those years away then the significance of climate change vanished."

Some researchers have argued that it is unfair to attack the IPCC too strongly, pointing out that some errors are inevitable in a report as long and technical as the IPCC's round-up of climate science. "Part of the problem could simply be that expectations are too high," said one researcher. "We have been seen as a scientific gold standard and that's hard to live up to."

Professor Christopher Field,director of the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution in California, who is the new co-chairman of the IPCC working group overseeing the climate impacts report, said the 2007 report had been broadly accurate at the time it was written.

He said: “The 2007 study should be seen as “a snapshot of what was known then. Science is progressive. If something turns out to be wrong we can fix it next time around.” However he confirmed he would be introducing rigorous new review procedures for future reports to ensure errors were kept to a minimum.

Sundancefisher

01-26-2010, 08:06 AM

************************************************** *******
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle7000063.ece

************************************************

IPCC's rebuttal... http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/artic...TTD3McHoiX-PU6w

UN panel defends climate change evidence
(AFP) – 2 hours ago

GENEVA — The UN climate panel has rejected as "baseless and misleading" a newspaper report that raised doubts about the evidence behind a claim that global warming is linked to worsening natural disasters.

This weekend, the Sunday Times of London reported that a passage in one of the panel's reports, which suggested natural disasters including hurricanes and floods had increased in number and intensity, had been challenged.

The IPCC insisted in a statement released late on Monday that the targeted study was quoted alongside others in balanced manner exposing the range of evidence. It said the panel had weighed its conclusions.

"This section of the IPCC report is a balanced treatment of a complicated and important issue."

"It clearly makes the point that one study detected an increase in economic losses, corrected for values at risk, but that other studies have not detected such a trend," the statement added.

"The tone is balanced, and the section contains many important qualifiers."

The panel also underlined that it came to several conclusions about the role of climate change in extreme weather events and disasters in different sections of its reports, based on a "careful" assessment of past changes and projections of future trends.

The panel concluded that the newspaper "ran a misleading and baseless story attacking the way the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC handled an important question concerning recent trends in economic losses from climate-related disasters."

The Sunday Times had reported that the IPCC included the reference to the then unpublished study despite doubts raised by at least two scientific reviewers at the time.

Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, a climatologist at the Universite Catholique de Louvain in Belgium and the vice-chairman of the IPCC, was quoted by the newspaper as saying that the panel was reassessing the evidence.

It was the second time in recent weeks that doubt was cast on the scientific validity some of the evidence used in the UN panel's reports.

The IPCC last week admitted errors in a forecast about melting Himalayan glaciers that was included in a landmark 2007 report.

The ongoing series of reports compiled since 1999 are meant to reflect a global scientific consensus to guide official action against climate change.

************************************************** *******

They seem to think their report is balanced yet their video dispells any thoughts of balance and rather takes a very stark and terrifying one sided view that global warming will destroy the Earth in earthquakes, storms, drought, tornadoes etc. Kinda not really an unbiased approach given that their information was not strongly in favor of supporting this scare tactic nor are most scientists believing this. Strangely poor science from a group that is saying they are all in it for truth...

Sundancefisher

01-28-2010, 07:55 AM

FIRST CLIMATE GATE INVESTIGATION REPORT IS IN

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8484385.stm

Climate e-mails row university 'breached data laws'

Requests were made under the Freedom of Information Act
A university unit involved in a row over stolen e-mails on climate research breached rules by withholding data, the Information Commissioner's Office says.

Officials said messages leaked in November showed that requests under the Freedom of Information Act were "not dealt with as they should have been".

But too much time has passed for action against the University of East Anglia.

The UEA says part of a probe into the case will consider the way requests by climate change sceptics were handled.

'Legal obligations'

The leaked files include documents, detailed data and private e-mails exchanged between leading climate scientists.

But academics deny claims the material showed science had been manipulated.

Professor Phil Jones, who has stood down as director of the Climatic Research Unit while the review takes place, has said he stands by his data and insisted that the emails had been taken "completely out of context".

In a statement, Deputy Information Commissioner Graham Smith said it was an offence under section 77 of the Freedom of Information act "to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information".

He said the requests were made by a climate change sceptic in the 2007-2008 period and as the case was more than six months old "the opportunity to consider a prosecution was long gone" under existing legislation.

Mr Smith said the ICO was "gathering evidence from this and other time-barred cases to support the case for a change in the law".

He added: "We will be advising the university about the importance of effective records management and their legal obligations in respect of future requests for information."

Norfolk Police have launched an inquiry into the case.

Meanwhile, former civil servant Sir Muir Russell is heading an independent review to examine whether there is evidence that data was manipulated or suppressed in a way which was "at odds with acceptable scientific practice".

The UEA said it would also explore how freedom of information requests had been acted on.

Sundancefisher

01-28-2010, 01:21 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8483722.stm

Temperature and CO2 feedback loop 'weaker than thought'
By Roger Harrabin
BBC environment analyst

The most alarming forecasts of natural systems amplifying the human-induced greenhouse effect may be too high, according to a new report.

The study in Nature confirms that as the planet warms, oceans and forests will absorb proportionally less CO2.

It says this will increase the effects of man-made warming - but much less than recent research has suggested.

The authors warn, though, that their research will not reduce projections of future temperature rises.

Further, they say their concern about man-made climate change remains high.

The research, from a team of scientists in Switzerland and Germany, attempts to settle one of the great debates in climate science about exactly how the Earth's natural carbon cycle will exacerbate any man-made warming.

Positive, negative

Some climate sceptics have argued that a warmer world will increase the land available for vegetation, which will in turn absorb CO2 and temper further warming. This is known as a negative feedback loop - the Earth acting to keep itself in balance.

But the Nature research concludes that any negative feedback will be swamped by positive feedback in which extra CO2 is released from the oceans and from already-forested areas.

The oceans are the world's great store of CO2, but the warmer they become, the less CO2 they can absorb. And forests dried out by increased temperatures tend to decay and release CO2 from their trees and soils.

Commenting in Nature on the new research, Hugues Goosse from the Université Catholique de Louvain in Belgium said: "In a warmer climate, we should not expect pleasant surprises in the form of more efficient uptake of carbon by oceans and land… that would limit the amplitude of future climate change".

The IPCC's fourth assessment report had a broad range of estimates as to how far natural systems would contribute to a spiral of warming. The Nature paper narrows that range to the lower end of previous estimates.

The report's lead author, David Frank from the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, told BBC News that many of the calculations for the IPCC assessment report did not include an integrated carbon cycle.

He said that if the results his paper were widely accepted, the overall effect on climate projections would be neutral.

"It might lead to a downward mean revision of those (climate) models which already include the carbon cycle, but an upward revision in those which do not include the carbon cycle.

"That'll probably even itself out to signify no real change in the temperature projections overall," he said.

'Comforting'

The team's calculations are based on a probabilistic analysis of climate variation between the years 1050 and 1800 - that is, before the Industrial Revolution introduced fossil carbon into the atmosphere.

Using 200,000 data points, the study - believed by Nature to be the most comprehensive of its kind so far - compared the Antarctic ice core record of trapped CO2 bubbles with so-called proxy data like tree rings, which are used to estimate temperature changes.

The most likely value among their estimates suggests that for every degree Celsius of warming, natural ecosystems tend to release an extra 7.7 parts per million of CO2 to the atmosphere (the full range of their estimate was between 1.7 and 21.4 parts per million).

The oceans' ability to absorb CO2 figures strongly into the debate
This stands in sharp contrast to the recent estimates of positive feedback models, which suggest a release of 40 parts per million per degree; the team say with 95% certainty that value is an overestimate.

"This is a valuable paper that helps to constrain certain feedback components for the past," said John Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

"However, it is probably not suited for extrapolation into the future and it does not cover the really interesting processes like anthropogenic activation of permafrost carbon or methane clathrates."

The paper will surely not be the last word in this difficult area of research, with multiple uncertainties over data sources.

"I think that the magnitude of the warming amplification given by the carbon cycle is a live issue that will not suddenly be sorted by another paper trying to fit to palaeo-data," Professor Brian Hoskins, a climate expert from Imperial College London, told BBC News.

Another crucial issue is the degree to which past trends will line up with potentially very different future scenarios.

Professor Tim Lenton from the University of East Anglia said: "It looks intriguing and comforting if they are right. The immediate problem I can see is that past variations in CO2 and temperature over the last millennium were very small, and this group are assuming that the relationship they derive from these very small variations can be extrapolated to the much larger variations in temperature we expect this century.

"We have plenty of reason to believe that the shape of the relationship may change (be nonlinear) when we 'hit the system harder'. So, I don't think they can rule out that the positive feedback from the carbon cycle could become stronger in a significantly warmer climate."

Sundancefisher

01-28-2010, 06:13 PM

This is a huge fear of mine. Scientist don't know enough to make models work...they fully admit almost every factor that is studied for climate research is fraught with unknowns...and yet now some people will do the knee jerk reaction and consider messing with the climate.

What I fear the most is an ice age of any size or magnitude. Adding chemicals to the atmosphere...absolutely crazy...inducing clouds...they don't even know what effects clouds have now.

On top of it all...someone wants to make money off this scheme. Anyone else worried this will go in a bad, bad direction?

Yikes with capital Y I K E S!

http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/Ga...3432/story.html

************************************************** ******************************
*****
Gates backing U of C climate research

By Kelly Cryderman, Calgary HeraldJanuary 28, 2010

A University of Calgary physicist's unconventional research into global warming appears to have attracted the attention of the world's richest man.

Blocking out some of the sun's rays is a faster and cheaper way of cooling the Earth's temperature than cutting greenhouse-gas emissions, says a research paper authored by David Keith.

On Wednesday -- the same day Keith's research paper was released by the science journal Nature -- a blog titled ScienceInsider reported that Keith and several American climate change researchers are being bankrolled by billionaire Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft.

The blog said a U.S. researcher and Keith are in charge of deciding how millions of dollars are being dispersed to geoengineering research -- or climate manipulating projects.

In an interview Wednesday, Keith declined to provide further details about the funding, but confirmed the report was correct.

"Yes, it's true. Bill is funding our stuff," Keith said.

An inquiry to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation on Wednesday went unanswered.

Keith preferred to speak Wednesday about how solar radiation could be reflected back into space by releasing megatonnes of light-scattering aerosol particles, or how low-altitude clouds could be created with sea salts.

The Nature article, which calls for a co-operative international research effort worth $1 billion, suggests a number of sun-reflecting techniques be investigated.

"Many scientists have argued against research on solar-radiation management, saying that developing the capability to perform such tasks will reduce the political will to lower greenhouse-gas emissions," says the article, which was authored by Keith and two other researchers.

"We believe that the risks of not doing research outweigh the risks of doing it."

Bouncing solar rays back into space carries numerous environmental and geopolitical dangers, and has, until very recently, been frowned upon by the scientific community.

However, the report says geoengineering could offset temperature increases much more cheaply than cutting the world's greenhouse gas emissions.

Keith cautions that geoengineering should only complement greenhouse gas reductions, not replace cuts. The article also cautions that countries must work collaboratively so that no "rogue state" takes unilateral action.

"There's the beginning of serious research projects, but really just starting up, literally, right now," Keith said in an interview.

It may sound like science fiction, but last year the Royal Society -- the national academy of science of the U.K. and the Commonwealth -- also released a report calling for large-scale intervention in the Earth's climate system.

That report said giant space mirrors may be required as backups to blunt the effects of climate change if emission reductions prove to be too little too late to stop the predicted effects of human-caused climate change.

Wednesday's article in Nature noted that Keith has a commercial interest in carbon dioxide extraction technology.

kcryderman@theherald.canwest.com

sullijr

01-28-2010, 06:23 PM

The founder of the weather channel gives a believable story
http://search1.mytelus.com/mytelus/ws/results/web/weather%20channel%20founder%20global%20warming/1/1172/ptheader/Relevance/zoom=off/_iceUrlFlag=7?_IceUrl=true
click on Jan 2010 to open story

sinawalli

01-28-2010, 07:01 PM

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss.h tml

Take 20 minutes and watch this! Might open some eyes!!

trophyboy

01-28-2010, 08:23 PM

Sundancefisher

01-31-2010, 07:35 PM

Like everything else these liberal freaks are behind this global warming thing is a huge hoax. Facts are starting to come out stating that this is all in fact a hoax. Do your research people.(How many mansions, limos, and private jets does Al Gore have?)See these people for what they truly are.....CRIMINALS!

Interestingly enough if you recall the scientists are not quite sure the effects of water vapor on Earth's temperature cycles...there is a new study that looks at it's effects over a short time period. Still very interesting and may show strong relationships between water vapor and our warming periods and cooling periods. We apparently need more water vapor in order to warm us up faster for Spring fishing...

Study shows water vapor is a major cause of warming and cooling trends

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100131145840.htm

**************************************************
Stratospheric Water Vapor Is a Global Warming Wild Card

ScienceDaily (Feb. 1, 2010) — A 10 percent drop in water vapor ten miles above Earth's surface has had a big impact on global warming, say researchers in a study published online January 28 in the journal Science. The findings might help explain why global surface temperatures have not risen as fast in the last ten years as they did in the 1980s and 1990s.

Observations from satellites and balloons show that stratospheric water vapor has had its ups and downs lately, increasing in the 1980s and 1990s, and then dropping after 2000. The authors show that these changes occurred precisely in a narrow altitude region of the stratosphere where they would have the biggest effects on climate.

Water vapor is a highly variable gas and has long been recognized as an important player in the cocktail of greenhouse gases -- carbon dioxide, methane, halocarbons, nitrous oxide, and others -- that affect climate.

"Current climate models do a remarkable job on water vapor near the surface. But this is different -- it's a thin wedge of the upper atmosphere that packs a wallop from one decade to the next in a way we didn't expect," says Susan Solomon, NOAA senior scientist and first author of the study.

Since 2000, water vapor in the stratosphere decreased by about 10 percent. The reason for the recent decline in water vapor is unknown. The new study used calculations and models to show that the cooling from this change caused surface temperatures to increase about 25 percent more slowly than they would have otherwise, due only to the increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

An increase in stratospheric water vapor in the 1990s likely had the opposite effect of increasing the rate of warming observed during that time by about 30 percent, the authors found.

The stratosphere is a region of the atmosphere from about eight to 30 miles above the Earth's surface. Water vapor enters the stratosphere mainly as air rises in the tropics. Previous studies suggested that stratospheric water vapor might contribute significantly to climate change. The new study is the first to relate water vapor in the stratosphere to the specific variations in warming of the past few decades.

Authors of the study are Susan Solomon, Karen Rosenlof, Robert Portmann, and John Daniel, all of the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) in Boulder, Colo.; Sean Davis and Todd Sanford, NOAA/ESRL and the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado; and Gian-Kasper Plattner, University of Bern, Switzerland.

Sundancefisher

02-02-2010, 08:04 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/02/much_has_been_written.html

Distorted view through the climate gates

Richard Black | 17:29 UK time, Tuesday, 2 February 2010

Much has been written - not least on this website - and much more surely will be written over the coming months about supposed inconsistencies, errors, misjudgements and poor practice among climate scientists.

How many "scandals" do we now have with the suffix "-gate" attached to them? At least five, by my count, with the most embarrassing surely being the projection that the mighty Himalayan glaciers could largely be gone within a human generation.

EarthThe latest -gate - detailed in a series of articles in The Guardian by environment journalist Fred Pearce - concerns a set of temperature data from China that was used in a 1990 paper in Nature to estimate the likely impact of progressive urbanisation on temperatures recorded at weather stations.

The paper is one of several cited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in reaching its conclusion that:

"Urban heat island effects are real but local, and have not biased the large-scale trends."

The implication of The Guardian's article is that Chinese scientists contributing data for that paper had not taken as much care as they should have done to document and allow for the fact that some of the weather stations had been relocated over the course of the study period, possibly affecting their readings; and that at some stage the paper's lead author, Professor Phil Jones, had been made aware of the issue by an independent UK researcher, Douglas Keenan, but did not seek to publicise or remedy it.

As anyone following the -gate trail will know, Professor Jones is the scientist at the centre of the original "Climategate" - November's e-mail theft from the University of East Anglia.

The point of this post isn't to go once more over well-trodden ground, but to raise a simple but crucial point.

Like all the other noisy -gates, this latest one throws up two questions: was scientific best practice followed, and is there anything here that affects the basic picture of climate science?

Weather_stationWhatever the answers to those may be - and Professor Jones' University of East Anglia has issued a rebuttal covering key points of The Guardian's article - the important point to make is that they are separate questions.

In some circles, every single -gate "relevation" has been followed by a ritualised fanfare claiming that the picture of climate warming through rising greenhouse gases concentrations has now been "fatally undermined", or some similar phrase.

Journalists with an eye for old-fashioned concepts such as balance, like Fred Pearce, are careful to avoid making that conclusion.

He writes that this latest episode...

"...does not change the global picture of temperature trends. There is plenty of evidence of global warming, not least from oceans far from urban influences. A review of recent studies published online in December by David Parker of the Met Office concludes that, even allowing for Jones's new data, 'global near-surface temperature trends have not been greatly affected by urban warming trends'."

He could also have cited the body of evidence from the satellite record, which also shows a clear warming trend.

In a paper published in the journal Energy and Environment [pdf link] in which he detailed his concerns about the 1990 conclusions, Doug Keenan made the same point:

"None of this means that the conclusion of the IPCC is incorrect."

In an interview with the Press Association (PA) about The Guardian's article, Phil Jones says he stands by the conclusion of the 1990 paper, not least because it was backed up by other studies, including papers in 2007 and 2008 that used a more detailed Chinese dataset.

He goes on to say:

"It makes me quite worried people are beginning to doubt the climate has warmed up."

And clearly some people do doubt that - many of you tell me so, in great detail, on every post I write, whatever it deals with - and judging by your comments, that's partly because some of you believe that all climate scientists are as bent as a... well, a hockey stick might be a good simile here.

It is a free world; and if you really do hold that view, then presumably it makes sense to jump the divide between the two questions I raised earlier, and conclude that as all climate scientists are dodgy, so is all climate data.

But I would argue that keeping the questions separate is of absolute and vital importance.

How scientists and the institutions of science behave is an important issue, no doubt about it - for evidence, look no further than the latest developments on the MMR saga, which sees The Lancet retracting the decade-old paper that sparked all the fuss - and Phil Jones tells PA in his interview:

"We do need to make more of the data available, I fully accept that."

But what matters far, far more than the nuances of climate scientists' behaviour is whether the climate is warming, and if it is, what is driving that warming.

Those are questions crucial for humanity's future, because if the IPCC's projections become reality, substantial swathes of the global population will find themselves living in much more straitened circumstances than they face at present.

If the scientific case for greenhouse warming crumbles, so be it; but I'd suggest we should beware of assuming it is crumbling simply because a few scientists or a few scientific papers or a few IPCC reviewers have been seen to fall short of the highest standards.

Unregistered user

02-02-2010, 11:27 PM

This whole charade will die a slow noisey death thanks to the economic downturn. Governments have pumped so much taxbux into the "Recovery" that it's done. H1N1 is shot to hell too, any bets on what will be the next panic?

mtylerb

02-03-2010, 02:58 AM

... any bets on what will be the next panic?

I'm betting next year will be the Pandemic of R2D2. Brought on by releasing Puxetawney Phil back into the wild (at PETA's insistance (http://sync.sympatico.ca/News/ContentPosting?newsitemid=014917231&feedname=CP-CONSUMER-TECH&show=False&number=10&showbyline=True&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&date=True)), it will be called the Groundhog Flu. :p

One of these years, they'll get the magical combination of letters and numbers that will scare the whole planet into believing they're not a bunch of kooks. ... Ok, probably not. :tongue2:

Sundancefisher

02-04-2010, 08:49 AM

‘Climategate’ inquiry shows scientist didn’t falsify data
Mike De Souza, Canwest News Service
Published: Wednesday, February 03, 2010

An academic inquiry into the so-called "climategate" email scandal has concluded that a well-known U.S. scientist did not directly or indirectly falsify data in his research.

The review, by a panel of senior administrators at Pennsylvania State University, found no evidence that climatologist Michael Mann had manipulated research that indicates humans are causing global warming. However, the panel has recommended further review on questions about whether his conduct had undermined public confidence in his findings as a scientist.

Allegations of improper conduct surfaced last fall when unknown computer hackers stole thousands of emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. Climate change skeptics posted the emails on websites calling it "climategate" prior to the last round of international negotiations on global warming in Copenhagen, Denmark. The talks subsequently failed to reach a binding agreement to reduce the quantity of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere after 2012.

"While a perception has been created in the weeks after the CRU emails were made public that Dr. Mann has engaged in the suppression or falsification of data, there is no credible evidence that he ever did so, and certainly not while at Penn State," said the inquiry report, published by the university on Wednesday.

The report concluded that one particular criticism about the researchers using a "trick" to create a graph showing rising temperatures, was actually referring to the use of an accepted scientific formula for producing an accurate graph.

"They were not falsifying data," said the report. "They were trying to construct an understandable graph for those who were not experts in the field. The so-called ‘trick' was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."

The report praised Dr. Mann for his "composure" and "forthright response" to all questions, finding no evidence that he had attempted to hide or destroy information, emails or data from his research. It also cleared him of allegations of misusing any privileged or confidential information he had access to as an academic scholar.

But the review noted that media reports and Internet blogs have been deeply divided over whether Dr. Mann and his fellow researchers violated public trust because of personal comments made about climate change skeptics who challenged peer-reviewed research. As a result, it recommended that a more detailed review would be needed to examine accepted practices and address all questions raised in the eyes of the public.

"One side views the emails as evidence of a clear cut violation of the public trust and seeks severe penalties for Dr. Mann and his colleagues," said the report. "The other side sees these as nothing more than the private discussions of scientists engaged in a hotly debated topic of enormous social impact."

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2518632

Sundancefisher

02-04-2010, 08:50 AM

Information is key to understanding...hense I am posting this stuff.

http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/...deos/A23A.shtml

Richard Alley’s Lecture 'The Biggest Control Knob - Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History'

http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/...deos/A23A.shtml

Very good for you to understand the geological record and what can be derived in this issue.

Sun

Sundancefisher

02-04-2010, 03:16 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese

Professor Phil Jones, who was director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and a professor of environmental sciences at the University of East Anglia in Norwich. Photograph: University of East Anglia

Phil Jones, the beleaguered British climate scientist at the centre of the leaked emails controversy, is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in key temperature data on which some of his work was based.

A Guardian investigation of thousands of emails and documents apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced.

Link to this audio Jones and a collaborator have been accused by a climate change sceptic and researcher of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming – a hotly contested issue.

Today the Guardian reveals how Jones withheld the information requested under freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Jones's collaborator, Wei-*Chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had "screwed up".

The revelations on the inadequacies of the 1990 paper do not undermine the case that humans are causing climate change, and other studies have produced similar findings. But they do call into question the probity of some climate change science.

The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN's embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

Wang was cleared of scientific fraud by his university, but new information brought to light today indicates at least one senior colleague had serious concerns about the affair.

It also emerges that documents which Wang claimed would exonerate him and Jones did not exist.

The revelations come at a torrid time for climate science, with the IPPC suffering heavy criticism for its use of information that had not been rigorously checked – in particular a false claim that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 – and UEA having been criticised last week by the deputy information commissioner for refusing valid requests for data under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Guardian has learned that of 105 freedom of information requests to the university concerning the climatic research unit (CRU), which Jones headed up to the end of December, only 10 had been released in full.

The temperature data from the Chinese weather stations measured the warming there over the past half century and appeared in a 1990 paper in the prestigious journal Nature, which was cited by the IPCC's latest report in 2007.

Climate change sceptics asked the UEA, via FOI requests, for location data for the 84 weather stations in eastern China, half of which were urban and half rural.

The history of where the weather stations were sited was crucial to Jones and Wang's 1990 study, as it concluded the rising temperatures recorded in China were the result of global climate changes rather the warming effects of expanding cities.

The IPCC's 2007 report used the study to justify the claim that "any urban-related trend" in global temperatures was small. Jones was one of two "coordinating lead authors" for the relevant chapter.

The leaked emails from the CRU reveal that the former director of the unit, Tom Wigley, harboured grave doubts about the cover-up of the shortcomings in Jones and Wang's work. Wigley was in charge of CRU when the original paper was published. "Were you taking W-CW [Wang] on trust?" he asked Jones. He continued: "Why, why, why did you and W-CW not simply say this right at the start?"

Jones said he was not able to comment on the story.

Wang said: "I have been exonerated by my university on all the charges. When we started on the paper we had all the station location details in order to identify our network, but we cannot find them any more.

"Some of the location changes were probably only a few metres, and where they were more we corrected for them."

In an interview with the Observer on Sunday Ed Miliband, the climate change secretary, warned of the danger of a public backlash against mainstream climate science over claims that scientists manipulated data. He declared a "battle" against the "siren voices" who denied global warming was real or caused by humans. "It's right that there's rigour applied to all the reports about climate change, but I think it would be wrong that when a mistake is made it's somehow used to undermine the overwhelming picture that's there," he said.

Last week the Information Commissioner's Office – the body that administers the Freedom of Information Act – said the University of East Anglia had flouted the rules in its handling of an FOI request in May 2008.

Days after receiving the request for information from the British climate change sceptic David Holland, Jones asked Prof Mike Mann of Pennsylvania State University in the United States: "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4? Keith will do likewise.

"Can you also email Gene [Eugene Wahl, a paleoclimatologist in Boulder, Colorado] and get him to do the same ... We will be getting Caspar [Ammann, also from Boulder] to do the same."

The University of East Anglia says that no emails were deleted following this exchange.

cooper

02-06-2010, 11:30 AM

who gives a sh t about the data. how long can we sh t in our own nest without having to pay to clean it up.:love:

maxpower2506

02-06-2010, 12:53 PM

Cleaning up the nest has nothing to do with CLIMATE CHANGE, does any one remember when it was GLOBAL WARMING. For every bark humping save the planet wing nut, that thinks climate change is REAL, there is just as many tree choppin, diesel burnin,SUV drivin wing nuts that says it is all BS, So lets call it a draw and have a beer!!!! I for one am not losing any sleep over it!!!

Black Stim

02-06-2010, 01:23 PM

TreeGuy

02-06-2010, 02:16 PM

Have you guys even taken the time to actually READ what Sun, has posted here????

What is coming to light is the fact that the so called 'scientists' behind this LIED. They fiddled with the data, and supressed any dissenting studies via the 'peer review' system!

We now have the IPCC demanding $100 BILLION a year to 'solve' this crisis, and pathetic, sheep-like morons jumping on the bandwagon to 'save the planet'. Governments are changing policy based on these LIES. Look at the highly touted cap and trade system that Europe brought in because of this. It's cost consumers untold billions, governments and massivie corporations have reaped unprescedented profits and so has organized crime. All the while emmissions have continued to increase. :mad:

One does not need to be a scientist to know when you're being LIED to! Thank you, Sun for keeping this thread alive. Eventually the truth will be know.

Unregistered user

02-06-2010, 05:35 PM

Pick up a copy of "Red Hot Lies" very interesting read.

Bushrat

02-06-2010, 07:29 PM

We now have the IPCC demanding $100 BILLION a year to 'solve' this crisis, and pathetic, sheep-like morons jumping on the bandwagon to 'save the planet'.

Yup, I like to see the $100 billion actually going to clean up the mess rather than go towards more studies and hockey stick graphs. We know where the messes are and what causes them. Billions of dollars spent on scientists sniffing the sh*tpile, billions spent on political dances with the sh*tpile, meanwhile the sh*tpile gets deeper and deeper. We are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a bureaurocracy to 'administer' and 'manage' this sh*tpile, haven't we learned that once a bureaucracy is created it will never go away and that the bureaucracy will protect the sh*tpile to ensure the bureacracy's continued existence through the gravy train it has created and thus feeds itself from.

TreeGuy

02-06-2010, 08:17 PM

Both myself and the planet wish you were the one in charge, Bushrat.:)

Sundancefisher

02-07-2010, 08:09 PM

I love that the most likely people to question science are the ones who have no understanding of science. (No, Biology 30 doesn't count as sufficient experience to question). Not that I disagree with a person's right to question, but don't think your opinion holds the same merit as a peer review.

What I find really funny is that everyone is an "expert" in a science field (ecology, biology, whatever) except the people actually working in the field.

If you don't think this has become more of a religion than science then we are having discussions with an entirely different set of people on both sides.

Those on the pro global warming sides will call absolutely anyone an expert...it they believe in global warming. If you don't...then you are not an expert. Pretty silly but this happens all the time. Most lay persons don't realize that almost every aspect of science is an expert in some form or another on one aspect of the debate or another. Statisticians develop the legitimate means in which to decipher numbers and prepare data. Computer modelers come together to try and make prediction after prediction after thousands upon thousand and model runs. Chemists try and figure out what the Earth is doing to absorb CO2. PaleoGeologists look into the past to see what has previously happened. Biologists and botanists are looking at the current natural world for clues as to what effects are happening. Oceanographers are looking at the effects of climate on oceans and what effects oceans have on climate. Atmospheric scientist are studying the air around us... and so and so forth. Many disciplines actually use and manipulate and report data and have the clear expertise to comment. But...to some...either you believe or don't believe.

So the IPCC said millions in Africa are going to starve due to global warming. ...but... Turns out there was never a study or peer reviewed data to back this up. The UN in turn but this fear in their reports to heads of government as part of the sell package to stop CO2.

The IPCC let's everyone assume there is peer reviewed science in their fear mongering comments. The last one was glaciers...now we have African crops. This is so irresponsible...it is an embarrassment to the whole IPCC premise. What can you trust that the science is good when some stuff has zero science behind it?

So in the end...whether you believe bogus stuff or think for yourself...saying people that are not climatologists can not comment...if totally unfair to this process.

************************************************** *************

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017907.ece

Top British scientist says UN panel is losing credibility
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

A LEADING British government scientist has warned the United Nations’ climate panel to tackle its blunders or lose all credibility.

Robert Watson, chief scientist at Defra, the environment ministry, who chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1997 to 2002, was speaking after more potential inaccuracies emerged in the IPCC’s 2007 benchmark report on global warming.

The most important is a claim that global warming could cut rain-fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020, a remarkably short time for such a dramatic change. The claim has been quoted in speeches by Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, and by Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general.

This weekend Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC’s climate impacts team, told The Sunday Times that he could find nothing in the report to support the claim. The revelation follows the IPCC’s retraction of a claim that the Himalayan glaciers might all melt by 2035.

The African claims could be even more embarrassing for the IPCC because they appear not only in its report on climate change impacts but, unlike the glaciers claim, are also repeated in its Synthesis Report.

This report is the IPCC’s most politically sensitive publication, distilling its most important science into a form accessible to politicians and policy makers. Its lead authors include Pachauri himself.

In it he wrote: “By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%. Agricultural production, including access to food, in many African countries is projected to be severely compromised.” The same claims have since been cited in speeches to world leaders by Pachauri and Ban.

Speaking at the 2008 global climate talks in Poznan, Poland, Pachauri said: “In some countries of Africa, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by 50% by 2020.” In a speech last July, Ban said: “Yields from rain-fed agriculture could fall by half in some African countries over the next 10 years.”

Speaking this weekend, Field said: “I was not an author on the Synthesis Report but on reading it I cannot find support for the statement about African crop yield declines.”

Watson said such claims should be based on hard evidence. “Any such projection should be based on peer-reviewed literature from computer modelling of how agricultural yields would respond to climate change. I can see no such data supporting the IPCC report,” he said.

The claims in the Synthesis Report go back to the IPCC’s report on the global impacts of climate change. It warns that all Africa faces a long-term threat from farmland turning to desert and then says of north Africa, “additional risks that could be exacerbated by climate change include greater erosion, deficiencies in yields from rain-fed agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000-20 period, and reductions in crop growth period (Agoumi, 2003)”.

“Agoumi” refers to a 2003 policy paper written for the International Institute for Sustainable Development, a Canadian think tank. The paper was not peer-reviewed.

Its author was Professor Ali Agoumi, a Moroccan climate expert who looked at the potential impacts of climate change on Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria. His report refers to the risk of “deficient yields from rain-based agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000–20 period”.

These claims refer to other reports prepared by civil servants in each of the three countries as submissions to the UN. These do not appear to have been peer-reviewed either.

The IPCC is also facing criticism over its reports on how sea level rise might affect Holland. Dutch ministers have demanded that it correct a claim that more than half of the Netherlands lies below sea level when, in reality, it is about a quarter.

The errors seem likely to bring about change at the IPCC. Field said: “The IPCC needs to investigate a more sophisticated approach for dealing with emerging errors.”

******************************************
IPCC accused of erring on African crop prediction
Jonathan Leake, Sunday Times, London, 8 February 2010, 01:30am IST

A leading British government scientist has warned the UN’s climate panel to tackle its blunders or lose all credibility.

Robert Watson, chief scientist at Defra, the environment ministry, who chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change from 1997 to 2002, was speaking after more potential inaccuracies emerged in the IPCC’s 2007 benchmark report on global warming.

The most important is a claim that global warming could cut rain-fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020, a remarkably short time for such a dramatic change. The claim has been quoted in speeches by Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, and by Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general.

This weekend Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC’s climate impacts team, said he could find nothing in the report to support the claim. The revelation follows the IPCC’s retraction of a claim that the Himalayan glaciers might all melt by 2035.

The African claims could be even more embarrassing for the IPCC as they appear not only in its report but, unlike the glaciers claim, are also repeated in its Synthesis Report. This report is the IPCC’s most politically sensitive publication, distilling its most important science into a form accessible to politicians and policy makers. Its lead authors include Pachauri himself.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/IPCC-accused-of-erring-on-African-crop-prediction/articleshow/5546596.cms

rugatika

02-07-2010, 10:55 PM

Great Post

I agree, Climate change scientists opinions should be considered in the same light and with the same weight as a tree choppin, diesel burnin,SUV drivin wing nuts that says it is all BS.

Why stop there? My doctor says I shouldn't smoke, drink, chew whatever- what does he know anyway? Surely I should question his expertise. My electrician says not to overload my wiring in my house- rubbish!

Climate change is not a "belief system". The big difference between science and a belief system (among others) is repeatability of experiments and peer review. What to do with the information is a where value judgements come in.

I love that the most likely people to question science are the ones who have no understanding of science. (No, Biology 30 doesn't count as sufficient experience to question). Not that I disagree with a person's right to question, but don't think your opinion holds the same merit as a peer review.

What I find really funny is that everyone is an "expert" in a science field (ecology, biology, whatever) except the people actually working in the field.

I have a degree in Science, I chop down trees, and drive a diesel. I've looked at the data, read countless articles from both sides, and seen all the crappy programming code in their joke of a climate model. And ya know what? Any moron that passed Biology 30 would be able to figure out that what these con-artists are trying to pass off as "science" doesn't come anywhere close to following the scientific method. If I had tried to pass off any of the crap these clowns have done I would have gotten laughed out of University and told to never come back. They are charlatans. They are liars and cheats...making crap up to keep the money flowing...telling the fear mongers in the UN what they want to hear so they can jerk the people on the bottom rung of the IQ ladder around like puppets.

There are thousands of respected scientists that disagree with AGW, emails outlining the lies, and untold minions that are making a mint off of the AGW scam, but you don't want to hear it. You want to think that YOU are part of some big global effort to save the world. You don't look at all the evidence...just what you want to see, and then you come on here calling everyone that has taken the time to put forth pages and pages of evidence outlining why it's all a scam a redneck, or a tree chopper, like we don't know what we're talking about. Thinking just like all liberals do that if you call us a name you'll shame us into shutting up. RACIST!! BIGGOT!! REDNECK!! Guess what...it's getting old, and the more that people start looking at the real evidence the more people like you are starting to look like fools for ever believing in this scam in the first place. If you honestly believe in the science then show us the science. The actual science.

I humbly apologize to all for my little rant and most of all to Sundancefisher who has done a yeoman's work in putting all this effort into trying to educate some people. But it's something I feel needed to be said. Don't anyone let these zealots shout you down or keep you from studying what is actually going on.

Now...in the immortal words of Willie Nelson..."There's more old drunks than there are old doctors, so I guess I better have another round."

BlackHeart

02-07-2010, 11:30 PM

Someone here had posted Burt Rutans analysis of the data. If you go through it all you would come to the same conclusion...global warming is BS.

Just read a book called Superfreak Economics....has some interesting information on Global Warming ...does go on some tangents on possible solutions, IF global warming by some chance is true, but the company of highly educated and intelligent people they mention come to the same conclusion....there is no global warming.....and even if there was, clouds that would be produced would counteract it......and if that did not happen....there are solutions that would be more effective in their application and much more economical.

Also something to think about....man made CO2 accounts for only 2% of the total CO2 produce per year. So if we could cut back by 20% that means 4/1000 (.4%) of the total per year is reduced. Think that tax on us will be just a little .4% increase???????

My take on it is that, Al Gore and his liberal and UN cohorts are pretty vain to think that mankind has that much control or impact.

Sundancefisher

02-08-2010, 07:37 AM

I just think that we are not getting the full information from the IPCC. I think there is filtering going on and we can't always rely on what people are telling us from either side as they each have an agenda.

It just frightens me when we hear major points made by the IPCC are clouded in assumptions without any scientific basis. They promote these as major concerns to politicians which in turn design policy that costs our economy.

We need to actually see ligitimate research being done with hypotheses to disprove global warming. Then either they disprove it or not but at least there is balance rather than bias. Everyone in the IPCC I am sure believes in their heart that we are all doomed to die of global warming. Therefore they think in "our" best interest and that bias clouds judgement.

IMHO

Sundancefisher

02-08-2010, 08:12 AM

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017922.ece

Who on Earth would tell the world media they wanted to kill themselves because they had emails leaked. Granted he has now admitted to not turning over data for peer review...he blames it because he did not want to release data to people that wanted to prove him wrong. Who gives any scientist the right to make people not ask questions? Science is not science until it is scienced to death. By that I mean people have to think about ways to prove the theory wrong or right after the first hypothesis is thrown out to the world to think about.

It is a very arrogant scientists IMHO that feels they must "protect" their data and point of view from criticism.

Now...as to why Jones has release this personal information...who knows. Maybe he is just not that smart. Maybe the "god factor" is coming into play. Some of these guys are trotting around like heros to the many fanatics and as such are protected well from scrutiny and personal attacks. On the other hand those opposed to the premise of Man made CO2 global warming catastrophy have very, very, very thick skins :tongue2:. When someone gets knocked down off a very, very high pedestal then rightly or wrongly they will get very depressed.

************************************************** ***********
I thought of killing myself, says climate scandal professor Phil Jones

Professor Phil Jones said in an exclusive interview with The Sunday Times that he had thought about killing himself “several times”. He acknowledged similarities to Dr David Kelly, the scientist who committed suicide after being exposed as the source for a BBC report that alleged the government had “sexed up” evidence to justify the invasion of Iraq.

In emails that were hacked into and seized upon by global-warming sceptics before the Copenhagen climate summit in December, Jones appeared to call upon his colleagues to destroy scientific data rather than release it to people intent on discrediting their work monitoring climate change.

Jones, 57, said he was unprepared for the scandal: “I am just a scientist. I have no training in PR or dealing with crises.”

The incident has taken a severe toll on his health. He has lost more than a stone in weight and disclosed he is on beta-blockers and using sleeping pills. He said the support of his family, and especially the love of his five-year-old granddaughter, had helped him to shake off suicidal thoughts: “I wanted to see her grow up.”

He remains at risk, still receiving death threats from around the world including two in the past week: “I was shocked. People said I should go and kill myself. They said that they knew where I lived. They were coming from all over the world.”

Jones has temporarily stood down as director of the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia. He fiercely defends the unit’s science — “I stand by it 100%” — but now accepts that he did not treat Freedom of Information (FoI) requests for the data as seriously as he should have done. Jones believes that the unit was maliciously targeted with multiple FoI requests by climate change sceptics determined to disrupt its work.

Last week Graham Smith, the deputy information commissioner, ruled that by failing to release requested data Jones and his colleagues breached FoI regulations. The affair is now the subject of a review led by Sir Muir Russell, former vice-chancellor of Glasgow University.

Sundancefisher

02-08-2010, 08:23 AM

Anyone who feels that this is about surviving the heat versus politics and power...just look to the IPCC power struggle. Where major special interest groups like Greenpeace is trying to get the IPCC chief fired. But he does not wish to give up the power position.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7014203.ece

************************************************** ******************
IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri under pressure to go over glacier error
Pachauri: failed to act when error in glacier science was revealed

Ben Webster, Environment Editor

The head of the UN’s climate change body is under pressure to resign after one of his strongest allies in the environmental movement said his judgment was flawed and called for a new leader to restore confidence in climatic science.

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has insisted that he will remain in post for another four years despite having failed to act on a serious error in the body’s 2007 report.

John Sauven, director of Greenpeace UK , said that Dr Pachauri should have acted as soon as he had been informed of the error, even though issuing a correction would have embarrassed the IPCC on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit.

A journalist working for Science had told Dr Pachauri several times late last year that glaciologists had refuted the IPCC claim that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. Dr Pachauri refused to address the problem, saying: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.” He suggested that the error would not be corrected until 2013 or 2014, when the IPCC next reported.

The IPCC issued a correction and apology on January 20, three days after the error had made global headlines. Mr Sauven said: “Mistakes will always be made but it’s how you handle those mistakes which affects the credibility of the institution. Pachauri should have put his hand up and said ‘we made a mistake’. It’s in these situations that your character and judgment is tested. Do you make the right judgment call? He clearly didn’t.”

The IPCC needed a new chairman who would hold public confidence by introducing more rigorous procedures, Mr Sauven said. “The IPCC needs to regain credibility. Is that going to happen with Pachauri [as chairman]? I don’t think so. We need someone held in high regard who has extremely good judgment and is seen by the global public as someone on their side.

“If we get a new person in with an open mind, prepared to fundamentally review how the IPCC works, we would regain confidence in the organisation.”

Dr Pachauri did not return calls yesterday but he told Indian television at the weekend that he believed attacks on him were being orchestrated by companies facing lower profits because of actions against climate change recommended by the IPCC.He added: “My credibility has been established because I was re-elected chairman in 2008 by all the countries of the world. They must have been satisfied with what I did in terms of the fourth assessment report [published in 2007] because they have given me the mandate of completing the fifth assessment report [[to be released over 2013 and 2014] which I intend doing.”

Bob Ward, of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change, said the countries that had appointed Dr Pachauri should consider his handling of the glacier issue when the IPCC plenary meeting is held in October. “That issue ought to be dealt with by them. It would depend on how he responds to the crisis facing the IPCC.

“He has made mistakes but I don’t think those mistakes are so serious that you would automatically get rid of him. If you changed the head, I don’t think that would necessarily restore the credibility of the IPCC.”

rugatika

02-08-2010, 11:37 AM

Sorry for the slight hijack Sundance...but now that we have shown AGW to be a scam a new Earthly problem has surfaced. And this one cannot so easily be disputed. Global disastrification!! Please everyone...let's do what we can to stop it.

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/013294.html

Note: to AGW believers who may not see the humour in it...this is a joke...do NOT start lobbying gov't for money to study global disastrification...again...it's just a joke much like AGW.

Sundancefisher

02-09-2010, 10:41 AM

The political fires are getting hot and the smoke thick at the IPCC.

***************************

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/08/2813722.htm?section=justin

Push to change embattled climate panel
Posted Mon Feb 8, 2010 9:09pm AEDT
Updated Mon Feb 8, 2010 9:28pm AEDT

Climate change sceptics have seized on the mistakes in the IPCC report. (AAP Image: Dean Lewins)

Audio: Calls for IPCC reform after fresh mistakes found (The World Today) Related Story: UN defends IPPC chief Related Story: Climate body 'embarrassed' over forest claim Related Story: UN admits Himalaya glacier data dodgy A prominent scientist has joined sceptics in calling for the UN authority on climate change to be reformed, as yet more flaws are exposed in the International Panel on Climate Change's reports.

The Telegraph newspaper in Britain reports that several of the claims made by the IPCC are based on information from masters students or from environmental or business lobby groups.

While climate scientists say these flaws do not undermine the core argument about global warming, some, including Australian scientist Dr Bob Carter, are now calling for changes in the international climate change body.

The newspaper reports that the potential of wave power to produce electricity was wrongly attributed to a British wave energy company, Wavegen.

The company says it was not the source of the information.

There are also reports that masters students' papers on the effect of climate change in the Nile Delta and other African coastal areas were included in the report.

Dr Carter, a marine geologist from James Cook University, says the IPCC has been involved in a string of scandals.

"They are all of the same sort, but the science they are doing is not high class or they are trying to manipulate the refereeing procedure," Dr Carter said.

"In some cases, they alter reports after the scientists have signed off on them.

"The perplexing thing about this, from the point of view of an independent scientist like me, is why the press has suddenly picked this up as a big story because it is a very old story."

Dr Carter says global warming is a natural occurrence.

"The question is not are carbon dioxide emissions causing warming," he said. "The question is how much warming are they causing or, more specifically, how much warming are the human emissions causing?

"The IPCC and their scientists have now had 20 years. They have spent somewhere around $100 billion, thousands of scientists worldwide working on trying to pin down that human signal.

"They haven't found it after 20 years.

"What it tells you is the human signal is so tiny that it is lost of the variation of natural climate."

The last IPCC report involved more than 1,000 authors, 2,000 reviewers and took three years to write.

Professor Neville Nicholls from Monash University, a lead IPCC author, says it inevitable that glitches will slip in.

"Some of that literature isn't published in peer review journals and we include things like masters theses and PHD theses and reports put together by government organisations," he said.

"We are supposed to asses it all and the evidence of warming just continues.

"The January we have just finished was the hottest January globally we've seen - the hottest January on record.

"That is using satellite data of lower atmospheric temperatures. November 2009 was the hottest November we have ever seen in that data. So I think evidence just continues to build."

Call for reform

Barry Brooke, a climate change professor at Adelaide University, says the report's flaws are not in the IPCC's argument about greenhouse gas emissions, but in the predictions made about the future impact of climate change.

"We are not talking about any attacks on the fundamental science, about whether carbon dioxide is rising or whether temperatures are going up or whether there is a link between those two," he said.

"That is fundamental evidence as documented in the working group one section of this report.

"All these attacks are coming in on working group two and working group three. They are concerned with trying to predict the future impact or trying to predict future energy supply.

"Any time you go to try and predict something that is going to happen in the future, obviously there is a big burden of uncertainty and there is going to be a lot of unknowns."

Yet Professor Brooke says the IPCC is too big, too unwieldy and does not keep up with new emerging science.

He is backing calls for the process to be reformed.

"I wouldn't be disturbed at all if there wasn't another IPCC report," he said.

"Indeed, I think it would probably be more efficient if you had reports on a more regular basis that were slimmer, easier for policy makers to deal with and kept up the pace with the latest findings.

"That might avoid the impression that the public gets - it is the monolithic body that is all-knowing, and it is obviously not - but also that is really slow-moving in terms of what it recommends."

But the IPCC's Professor Nichols disagrees

"The IPCC reports are long. They are unwieldy. They are boring," he said.

"They take a lot of time for people like me to prepare because of the transparent review process, but what else do you do?

"Do you just say let everyone in the opinion pages of the newspaper, without the benefit of spending the time looking at the literature, do you take their opinion as the best opinion?

"I can't see another way around it and I would dearly love to find a simpler and streamlined process than all the time I have to put into IPCC, but I think we'd invent another IPCC if the IPCC didn't exist."

Editor's note (February 9): This story originally referred to Dr Bob Carter as a marine biologist. It has been corrected to refer to him as a marine geologist.

Sundancefisher

02-09-2010, 10:49 AM

The one thing in this whole debate is that we never, ever, ever hear about any studies that show positive benefits to an increase in temperature by a couple degrees. You have to ask yourself..."why is that?"

Intuitively speaking there are always some positives to be discussed even if under a certain scenario the major are negative consequences.

That to me underlies my concern with current so called open, peered reviewed science.

Here is an interesting story on what may be considered a positive study...

************************************************** *******
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8503000/8503823.stm

Climate change will make world more 'fragrant'
By Matt Walker
Editor, Earth News

Fresh but fragrant air

Climate change will make the world more fragrant.

As CO2 levels increase and the world warms, land use, precipitation and the availability of water will also change.

In response to all these disruptions, plants will emit greater levels of fragrant chemicals called biogenic volatile organic compounds.

That will then alter how plants interact with one another and defend themselves against pests, according to a major scientific review.

According to the scientists leading the review, the world may already be becoming more fragrant, as plants have already begun emitting more smelly chemicals.

"The increase is exponential," says Professor Josep Penuelas, of the Global Ecology Unit at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain.

"It may have increased already by 10% in the past 30 years and may increase 30 to 40% with the two to three degrees (Celsius) warming projected for the next decades."

Biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOCs) are routinely emitted by plants into the atmosphere.

Such chemicals differ in size, properties and origin, and can range from isoprene, monoterpenes, sesquiterpenes, and so-called green leaf and herbivore-induced volatiles to oxygenated volatile organic compounds such as carbonyls, acids and alcohols.

All play vital roles in helping plants grow and metabolise, communicate with one another and reproduce, and protect or defend themselves from herbivores such as browsing mammals or insect pests.

But plants emit different levels of such compounds depending on environmental conditions.

While significant research has been done to assess the impact of global warming on further CO2 exchange in the atmosphere, little focus has been given to how changing temperatures will alter emissions of important compounds such as BVOCs.

So Prof Penuelas and Dr Michael Staudt of the Centre for Functional Ecology and Evolution in Montpellier, France conducted a major review of how climate change will alter the expression of these compounds.

"Based upon the work reviewed, we can be reasonably sure that climate and global change in general will have an impact on BVOC emissions," they write in the journal Trends in Plant Sciences.

"The most likely overall impact is an increase in BVOC emissions mostly driven by current warming, and that the altered emissions will affect their physiological and ecological functions and their environmental role."

In particular, they say higher temperatures will cause plants to produce more BVOCs, and also lengthen the growing season of many species, further adding to the BVOCs produced.

By enhancing the activity of BVOC synthesising enzymes, and making it easier for such compounds to diffuse into the air, rising temperatures will cause a sharp, exponential increase in BVOCs.

Global emissions may already have increased by 10% in the past 30 years and could increase by an additional 30 to 45%, they say.

For example, studies have shown that artificially increasing the air temperature by three to four degrees Celsius makes heath growing on a sub-Arctic island emit between 56 and 83% more isoprene.

Higher temperatures will also enable more high-emitting plants to colonise higher latitudes.

Temperature will not be the only factor making plants emit more fragrant chemicals.

Changes in land use could mean that rainforests are being replaced by plantation trees, such as palms and rubber, that emit many more volatile organic compounds.

The scientists also suspect that higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, greater levels of UV radiation reaching the poles, and increased amounts of ozone pollution, will all affect how plants produce BVOCs, though it is much less clear how.

Overall though, they feel the impact on plants around the world could be significant and underappreciated.

Complex consequences

Communication between plants could be affected.

For example, some BVOCs such as terpenes, methyl jasmonate or methyl salicylate act as airborne signals between plants, warning them of an attack by herbivores.

Plants forced to produce more of such chemicals could therefore be in a constant state of high alert.

Or it could be that a more fragrant atmosphere confuses pollinators such as bees, altering plant reproduction, or insect pests.

"Temperature is a very powerful driver of emissions," says Prof Penuelas.

"The increased emissions will likely affect physiology and ecology, ie the functioning of life."

He and Dr Staudt say a number of more detailed long term studies need to be performed to better understand the impact of elevated BVOC emissions in different habitats.

For while they can be reasonably sure that BVOC levels will increase, and the world will become more fragrant as a result, the problem is too complex to yet gauge many of the consequences.

BlackHeart

02-09-2010, 11:13 AM

Great Post

I agree, Climate change scientists opinions should be considered in the same light and with the same weight as a tree choppin, diesel burnin,SUV drivin wing nuts that says it is all BS.

Why stop there? My doctor says I shouldn't smoke, drink, chew whatever- what does he know anyway? Surely I should question his expertise. My electrician says not to overload my wiring in my house- rubbish!

Climate change is not a "belief system". The big difference between science and a belief system (among others) is repeatability of experiments and peer review. What to do with the information is a where value judgements come in.

I love that the most likely people to question science are the ones who have no understanding of science. (No, Biology 30 doesn't count as sufficient experience to question). Not that I disagree with a person's right to question, but don't think your opinion holds the same merit as a peer review.

What I find really funny is that everyone is an "expert" in a science field (ecology, biology, whatever) except the people actually working in the field.

Your mechanic tells you you need a new engine and the cost is $10,000 for your chevette. He is a certified mechanic-he should know exactly what you need to do.

Your lawyer tells you, we can eventually win this one just going to take some time. He spent 7years in university and has a law degree-he should know exactly what you should do legally.

Your new financial advisor tell you to cash in your RRSPs and mortgage your house for this once in a lifetime investment opportunity-BREX. He does have all those diplolmas and certificates on the wall - he should know exactly what you should do with your money. Oh and don't worry the stock market will keep going up.

You get a call saying you just won a trip - why not just pay the taxes for that free trip.

The big highly profitable pharamacetical company says that if they allow generic drugs they will not be able to make new drugs.

The point I am trying to make is that as soon as self-interest comes into play you can, for the most part, guarantee there is distortion, manipulation, and alterior motives.

The truth is that the UN is run by third world countries. They want a piece of the pie handed to them form us. Climate scientists are receiving a lot of research money and salary. Corporations are coming up with schemes to make a lot of money on cap and trade, or get that juicy carbon taxes into their hands-ie buying up brazilian rain forest now. The wealthy see this as a great way to equalize all the middle and low income classes with the third world. Problem solved, there are kings again and we are all serfs and peasants again- but this time its for the environment and our own good.

Sundancefisher

02-10-2010, 08:05 AM

Not that I disagree with a person's right to question, but don't think your opinion holds the same merit as a peer review.

What I find really funny is that everyone is an "expert" in a science field (ecology, biology, whatever) except the people actually working in the field.

Cool study.

Peer reviewed and suggests that up to 90% of the melting in the Himalayas is due to soot versus global warming.

************************************************** ************************
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100203161436.htm

Science News Share Blog Cite Print Email BookmarkBlack Carbon a Significant Factor in Melting of Himalayan Glaciers
ScienceDaily (Feb. 4, 2010) — The fact that glaciers in the Himalayan mountains are thinning is not disputed. However, few researchers have attempted to rigorously examine and quantify the causes. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory scientist Surabi Menon set out to isolate the impacts of the most commonly blamed culprit -- greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide -- from other particles in the air that may be causing the melting. Menon and her collaborators found that airborne black carbon aerosols, or soot, from India is a major contributor to the decline in snow and ice cover on the glaciers.

"Our simulations showed greenhouse gases alone are not nearly enough to be responsible for the snow melt," says Menon, a physicist and staff scientist in Berkeley Lab's Environmental Energy Technologies Division. "Most of the change in snow and ice cover -- about 90 percent -- is from aerosols. Black carbon alone contributes at least 30 percent of this sum."

Menon and her collaborators used two sets of aerosol inventories by Indian researchers to run their simulations; their results were published online in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

The actual contribution of black carbon, emitted largely as a result of burning fossil fuels and biomass, may be even higher than 30 percent because the inventories report less black carbon than what has been measured by observations at several stations in India. (However, these observations are too incomplete to be used in climate models.) "We may be underestimating the amount of black carbon by as much as a factor of four," she says.

The findings are significant because they point to a simple way to make a swift impact on the snow melt. "Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for 100 years, but black carbon doesn't stay in the atmosphere for more than a few weeks, so the effects of controlling black carbon are much faster," Menon says. "If you control black carbon now, you're going to see an immediate effect."

The Himalayan glaciers are often referred to as the third polar ice cap because of the large amount of ice mass they hold. The glacial melt feeds rivers in China and throughout the Indian subcontinent and provide fresh water to more than one billion people.

Atmospheric aerosols are tiny particles containing nitrates, sulfates, carbon and other matter, and can influence the climate. Unlike other aerosols, black carbon absorbs sunlight, similar to greenhouse gases. But unlike greenhouse gases, black carbon does not heat up the surface; it warms only the atmosphere.

This warming is one of two ways in which black carbon melts snow and ice. The second effect results from the deposition of the black carbon on a white surface, which produces an albedo effect that accelerates melting. Put another way, dirty snow absorbs far more sunlight -- and gets warmer faster -- than pure white snow.

Previous studies have shown that black carbon can have a powerful effect on local atmospheric temperature. "Black carbon can be very strong," Menon says. "A small amount of black carbon tends to be more potent than the same mass of sulfate or other aerosols."

Black carbon, which is caused by incomplete combustion, is especially prevalent in India and China; satellite images clearly show that its levels there have climbed dramatically in the last few decades. The main reason for the increase is the accelerated economic activity in India and China over the last 20 years; top sources of black carbon include shipping, vehicle emissions, coal burning and inefficient stoves. According to Menon's data, black carbon emitted in India increased by 46 percent from 1990 to 2000 and by another 51 percent from 2000 to 2010.

However, black carbon's effect on snow is not linear. Menon's simulations show that snow and ice cover over the Himalayas declined an average of about one percent from 1990 to 2000 due to aerosols that originated from India. Her study did not include particles that may have originated from China, also known to be a large source of black carbon. (See "Black soot and the survival of the Tibetan glaciers," by James Hansen, et al., published last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.) Also the is an average for the entire region, which saw increases and decreases in snow cover. As seen in the , while a large swath of the Himalayas saw snow cover decrease by at least 16 percent over this period, as reported by the National Snow and Ice Data Center, a few smaller patches saw increases.

Menon's study also found that black carbon affects precipitation and is a major factor in triggering extreme weather in eastern India and Bangladesh, where cyclones, hurricanes and flooding are common. It also contributes to the decrease in rainfall over central India. Because black carbon heats the atmosphere, it changes the local heating profile, which increases convection, one of the primary causes of precipitation. While this results in more intense rainfall in some regions, it leads to less in other regions. The pattern is very similar to a study Menon led in 2002, which found that black carbon led to droughts in northern China and extreme floods in southern China.

"The black carbon from India is contributing to the melting of the glaciers, it's contributing to extreme precipitation, and if black carbon can be controlled more easily than greenhouse gases like CO2, then it makes sense for India to regulate black carbon emissions," says Menon.

Unregistered user

02-10-2010, 04:00 PM

I was in Alaska 10 years ago looking at the calving glaciers near Whittier. The captain pointed out the grey coating on the glaciers and commented it was ash from the mount Pinatubo eruption and had sped up the melting somewhat.

classiccanadianblizzard

02-10-2010, 09:00 PM

This has got to be the funnest thread I have ever seen :lol: sundancefisher seems to have the tread almost entirely to himself... and he still needs to keep talking and talking and talking :confused: Is he worried that if he stops talking that his brain might start working? Or is he trying to convince himself of something? :eek: I just wish these people would give it up!!!! You guys (global warming fear mongers) got caught with your hand in the cookie jar... and then still have the arrogance to think we will listen to your crap. :evilgrin::zzz::tongue2:

TreeGuy

02-10-2010, 09:11 PM

Sundancefisher

02-10-2010, 09:53 PM

CCB, Sun is posting vital information both in regards as to how we have been hoodwinked by the IPCC, and the results of actual science. His efforts are greatly appreciated. Out of respect for his extensive effort, many of us have tried to refrain from posting in order to not degrade this thread into yet another non-productive squabble on the issue.

Please, please, please take the time to read everything that has been posted. It's both fascinating and enfuriating. Thank you again Sun.:)

Thanks TreeGuy.

All...my intent is not to annoy so please take it in the context it is intended. I have found in my research that their is lots of information out there but access to it is sketchy at best based upon poor dissemination of data. With my science background I can comment somewhat and gauge in my own opinion as to whether it seems to make sense or is flawed. I have also noted that some browsers like Google appear to be altering their search engine criteria making it somewhat harder to get the information. I don't think it is on purpose but rather the shear number of articles, blogs and posts along with the tens of millions of hits may be complicating the searches.

I am really not yet picking a side...although some may assume that cause I find some stuff incredulous from a science point of view and also I like to challenge both sides to think.

With new information coming out daily...either you care or not. If you care...your can read and contradict if you so chose. If you don't care...just don't read. I am not making up the information but rather giving people a sole source in which to review it. I have friends on both sides and discuss it and get information and pass it on.

Cheers all.

Sun

P.S. classiccanadianblizzard...do you believe in man made global warming harming your children or do you believe in a natural cycle and any impact from man with either be minimal in it's impact or mitigated by nature? I could not tell from your post as to if you think I am being to biased in one direction?

Bushrat

02-11-2010, 07:38 AM

Sundancefisher

02-11-2010, 07:52 AM

I believe media bias has a major impact on peoples perceptions of reality. The heart of their business is social engineering. Lots of critical information about issues never makes it to the public. We are a product of information we receive and draw conclusions about subjects based on that information. If that information is skewed to one side with part of the equation missing many people will draw the political or media desired conclusion. Dosen't mean the conclusions we draw are correct. Media lies by omission.

I agree. I have seen first hand the media slanting a story to sell versus report. It is an unfortunate consequence of them having to make money and lose track of their own honesty and integrity.

At least now we have a chance to see if there has been some information manipulation. The "Climate Gate" inquiry is now under way.

*****************************************
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8510498.stm

Climategate e-mails inquiry under way
By Mark Kinver
Science and environment reporter, BBC News

A panel of independent experts has officially begun its inquiry into the "Climategate" affair.

The experts, headed by Sir Muir Russell, will investigate how e-mails from the UK's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) appeared on the web.

They will also consider if the e-mail exchanges between researchers show an attempt to manipulate or suppress data "at odds" with scientific practice.

The panel hopes to present "preliminary conclusions by spring 2010".

Speaking at the launch of the inquiry, Sir Muir, who is chairman of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland, said: "We are free to pursue and follow any line of inquiry that we wish."

E-mail allegations

In November, more than 1,000 messages between scientists at the CRU, based at the University of East Anglia (UEA), and their peers around the world were posted on the web, along with other documents.

CRU maintains one of the world's most important datasets on how global temperatures have changed.

Sir Muir says the review will follow any line of inquiry
Professor Phil Jones, the director of the unit, has stepped down pending the review, and has said he stands by his data.

UEA appointed Sir Muir in December to head an inquiry in to a series of allegations that arose from the stolen e-mails.

As well as more than 1,000 e-mails, the hack took 3,000 documents. The overall size of data amounted to 160MB.

The panel are also tasked with considering whether the unit failed to observe Freedom of Information requests properly.

Critics said that the e-mail exchanges reveal an attempt by the researchers involved to manipulate data.

Panel announced

Climate sceptics suggest that the affair shows that either human activities are not affecting the planet's climate system, or that the impacts are not as bad as many climate scientists suggest.

The panel's investigation will:

• "Examine the hacked e-mail exchanges, other relevant e-mail exchanges and any other information held at CRU to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice."

• "Review CRU's policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings."

• "Review CRU's compliance or otherwise with the university's policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act."

• "Review and make recommendations as to the appropriate management, governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity and release of the data it holds."

However, the panel will not review the past scientific work of the CRU, as this will be re-appraised by a UEA-commissioned study, which will involve the Royal Society.

The other members of the inquiry, which is being funded by UEA, are Geoffrey Boulton, general secretary of the Royal Society of Edinburgh; Dr Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief for Nature journal; Professor Peter Clarke of the University of Edinburgh; David Eyton, head of research and technology at BP; and Professor Jim Norton, vice president for the Chartered Institute for IT.

Sundancefisher

02-13-2010, 09:58 AM

From what I have read so far only the fanatics on one side or the other believe that major weather events proves one side or the another.

The anti GWT (global warming theory) guy says snow means cooling. The pro GWT guy says snow means warming. In the end rationally speaking all this storm tells us is...a storm happened.

The one guy says without a doubt we are in a warming trend...but the last 11 years has been cooling. Paleogeographically speaking...we have been warming for some time. If global historical patterns are the more consistent guide to predicting long term temperatures...maybe we are now in a falling temperature cycle heading towards a mini ice age.

At the same time if we had 10 years in a row of heavy snow winters...that can tell us something...but maybe only that ocean currents are changing.

Sun

************************************************** **
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/12/reconciling-record-snow-storms-global-warming/

Updated February 13, 2010
Global Warming Debate Heats Up in Wake of Record Snowstorms

By Blake Snow

Scientists and politicians on both sides of the climate change debate have been pointing to the record-breaking snowstorms in the Mid-Atlantic states to promote their theories on the earth's changing temperatures -- and the debate is getting downright nasty.

As snow-weary Pennsylvanians dug out, utilities struggled to restore power to thousands and crews worked to reopen closed roads after a record-breaking blizzard that dumped more than a foot of snow across the state.

Scientists and politicians on both sides of the climate change debate have been pointing to the record-breaking snowstorms in the Mid-Atlantic states to promote their theories on the earth's changing temperatures -- and the debate is getting downright nasty.

Joseph Romm, a climate change expert and former Energy Department official; Jeff Masters, a meteorologist who writes on the Weather Underground blog; and others argue that this winter's snowstorms are, counterintuitively, evidence of global warming and not cooling.

"It's absurd for the 'anti-science side' to say we're in a cooling trend when we're in an overall warming trend," says Romm of the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. "Heavy snow is not evidence that climate science is false," he added, noting that "the snow we've seen is entirely consistent with global warming theory."

But Patrick J. Michaels, senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and state climatologist for Virginia for 27 years, disagrees. "Global warming simply hasn't done a darned thing to Washington's snow," he wrote on National Review, adding that "if you plot out year-to-year snow around here, you'll see no trend whatsoever through the entire history."

Politicians are jumping on the bandwagon, too. "It's going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries 'uncle,'" tweeted Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.

Global warming advocates feel under attack as skeptics use the record-setting snowstorms -- and the recent discoveries of errors in the U.N.'s climate science study, a growing scandal called climate-gate -- to question the theory that climate change is a manmade problem.

Romm explains that cold weather doesn't cause snow. What brings the flakes down is a combination of cold and precipitation. And since warmer air holds more moisture, global warming and heavy snowfall can coexist, so long as temperatures keeping dipping below 32 degrees.

Bill Nye, the Science Guy, agrees, going so far as to tell MSNBC's Rachel Maddow that scientists who doubt climate change's manmade origins are unpatriotic. "If you want to get serious about it, these guys claiming that the snow in Washington disproves climate change are almost unpatriotic -- it's as if they're denying science," Nye said.

And though the science debate heats up, unlike the weather, the snowstorms have set off even more questions: Why is the East Coast getting hit, while Vancouver needs to truck in snow for the Winter Olympics? Can we accurately link extreme weather with global warming?

Not really, says meteorologist Jeff Masters of Weather Underground, an independent forecaster. "You can't take regional events and link them to overall climate change," he said. "There's a huge amount of natural variance."

But some skeptics say the science isn't that innocent, even though they acknowledge global warming as a measurable anomaly. "As climate change critics, we're not denying an increase in temperature," says Dan Miller, publisher of the Heartland Institute, a group that favors free-market solutions to public policy problems. "We're skeptical of the crisis level and the cause."

Miller says climate-change scientists have a conflict of interest, as many stand to receive "a huge amount of money" from the government to support continued research. "There is no upper limit of money at stake," he warns.

Conversely, Miller says his firm is impartial, having no financial investment in climate change; it would lose a mere 4 percent of its funding if it ends up on the wrong side of the debate. "There's no money at stake for critics," he points out.

Masters says in a perfect world he'd need "200-300 years worth of records" to accurately predict further climate change. But since that's not available, "We're forced to make decisions on a limited data set." Nevertheless, Masters feels the possible dangers of global warming outweigh the risks of remaining idle. "We need to take action even in the face of inadequate data," he says.

Miller disagrees, arguing that we should collectively return to the drawing board -- in light of all the controversy, confusion, and potential conflicts of interest -- before we draw any conclusions.

"The science isn't settled," he says. "Yes, the climate has warmed -- that's not a hoax. But can't we go back and reconsider the science? Let's just step back and reconsider."

Sundancefisher

02-13-2010, 10:55 AM

Great...a scientist who feel threatened by those that don't agree with him. What scientists out there have everyone believing them? Very, very few obviously.

Now he says he is just not well organized. Can't find the raw data...lost the raw data... Holy cow is that scary that we would even consider relying on a guy like this for critical policy decisions!

If scientists are provide data, recommendations and policy decision information then they should be held to an incredibly high standard to make sure bias and poorly done science is excluded. Currently that is not being done by anyone but the IPCC which...as we can tell from the Climategate scandal leaks, Glaciergate and Africagate and Stormgate...that they have sorely failed to date.

Now that an investigation is underway...guys like this are desperately trying to lay the ground work for denial of any wrong doing. That being said...he may just be totally stupid and inept in how he does studies and may mean well...but then people and the IPCC should know that and be super critical of his work and demand full disclosure and review by ANYONE wanting to test his theories.

In the end he should be FORCED to redo his work with ONLY that raw data he currently poses or can find legitimately and the re-run his work. He can't use data he can't show where it comes from. He also has to be available for defending his work if he is using a biased data set. We have to know where the temperature recording sites are. That makes a huge difference to eliminating bias. He complains that he is just a scientist measuring temperature but in fact he spends a lot of time linking CO2 to temperature which is making a big inference step without the research. Anyways...controversy is just the life of a scientist and he has to get over the ego trip he used to ride! Science is not science until someone can replicate the work and the work is defend-able in public. IMHO.

Sun

***********************************************
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511701.stm

Climategate' expert Jones says data not well organised
By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News

Professor Phil Jones

Phil Jones, the professor behind the "Climategate" affair, has admitted some of his decades-old weather data was not well enough organised.

He said this contributed to his refusal to share raw data with critics - a decision he says he regretted.

But Professor Jones said he had not cheated over the data, or unfairly influenced the scientific process.

He said he stood by the view that recent climate warming was most likely predominantly man-made.

But he agreed that two periods in recent times had experienced similar warming. And he agreed that the debate had not been settled over whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period.

These statements are likely to be welcomed by people sceptical of man-made climate change who have felt insulted to be labelled by government ministers as flat-earthers and deniers.

'Bunker mentality'

Professor Jones agreed that scientists on both sides of the debate could suffer sometimes from a "bunker mentality".

He said "sceptics" who doubted his climate record should compile their own dataset from material publicly available in the US.

"The major datasets mostly agree," he said. "If some of our critics spent less time criticising us and prepared a dataset of their own, that would be much more constructive."

His colleagues said that keeping a paper trail was not one of Professor Jones' strong points. Professor Jones told BBC News: "There is some truth in that.

"We do have a trail of where the (weather) stations have come from but it's probably not as good as it should be," he admitted.

"That's similar with the American datasets. There were technical reasons for this, with changing data from different countries. There's a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more."

Professor Jones clarified later that when he had told me that his paper trail was insufficient he meant data trail. He insisted that he had not lost any original data, but that the sources of some of the data may have been insufficiently clear.

His account is the most revealing so far about his decision to block repeated requests from people demanding to see raw data behind records showing an unprecedented warming in the late 20th Century.

Professor Jones said climate scientists needed to do more to communicate the reasons behind their conclusion that humans were driving recent climate change.

They also needed to be more transparent with data - although he said this process had already begun.

He strongly defended references in his emails to using a "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures.

These phrases had been deliberately taken out of context and "spun" by sceptics keen to derail the Copenhagen climate conference, he said.

And he denied any attempt to influence climate data: "I have no agenda," he said.

"I'm a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I'd say so. But it hasn't until recently - and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend."

He said many people had been made sceptical about climate change by the snow in the northern hemisphere - but they didn't realise that the satellite record from the University of Alabama in Huntsville showed it had been the warmest January since records began in 1979.

Sundancefisher

02-14-2010, 11:45 AM

:mad3:

With my training in scientific thought and research this has always been my largest area of skepticism. It has been well documented that most weather stations were set in and around airports. As airports grew...so did the impact of human induced "microclimates". To explain a microclimate one only needs to look at the temperature patterns in a big city. The downtown core is always 2 degrees or warmer than the suburbs which in turn is a least a degree warmer than the surrounding country side farms. When you look at additional bias in having a heating generating source like an air conditioner fan it makes you kind of angry that that is not taken into account.

Actually some studies do take it into account. Unfortunately...after they do their modeling efforts some studies actually show the opposite effects in their report by tweaking the data to show more natural warming than man made appliance effects.

These biases is what I need to be removed in order to start "trusting" what these guys are saying. When the head temperature guy puts in bias...then the next guy uses his work and puts in bias..and the next one and the next one... Well...you know you end up with biased results in the extreme.

IMHO

Sun

************************************************** *****
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece

The Sunday Times
February 14, 2010
World may not be warming, say scientists
Jonathan Leake

The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.

In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal”.

It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.

Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.

The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.

“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said.

Such warnings are supported by a study of US weather stations co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate change sceptic.

His study, which has not been peer reviewed, is illustrated with photographs of weather stations in locations where their readings are distorted by heat-generating equipment.

Some are next to air- conditioning units or are on waste treatment plants. One of the most infamous shows a weather station next to a waste incinerator.

Watts has also found examples overseas, such as the weather station at Rome airport, which catches the hot exhaust fumes emitted by taxiing jets.

In Britain, a weather station at Manchester airport was built when the surrounding land was mainly fields but is now surrounded by heat-generating buildings.

Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, looked at the same data as the IPCC. He found that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be due to random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases. Mills’s findings are to be published in Climatic Change, an environmental journal.

“The earth has gone through warming spells like these at least twice before in the last 1,000 years,” he said.

Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the chapter of the IPCC report that deals with the observed temperature changes, said he accepted there were problems with the global thermometer record but these had been accounted for in the final report.

“It’s not just temperature rises that tell us the world is warming,” he said. “We also have physical changes like the fact that sea levels have risen around five inches since 1972, the Arctic icecap has declined by 40% and snow cover in the northern hemisphere has declined.”

The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts has recently issued a new set of global temperature readings covering the past 30 years, with thermometer readings augmented by satellite data.

Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “This new set of data confirms the trend towards rising global temperatures and suggest that, if anything, the world is warming even more quickly than we had thought.”

Surface temperature records: policy driven deception? - a report by Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts
*************************************
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf Who is the SPPI? I found this on the web. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute

Sundancefisher

02-14-2010, 11:59 AM

If the man influence global warming catastrophe scenario is correct we will definitely need biased removed. We saw on the survey of scientific opinions that many scientists believe in global warming...greatly influenced by the thought that all their peers believe even though they themselves do not see scientific evidence in their own research. Some core studies and scientists are driving the bulk of the belief system and as such they must be held accountable to an extremely high level of scrutiny. IF they can't stand the heat and defend their research and share the raw data and discuss irregularities in micro-climate impacts etc...then quite frankly they are NOT scientists but either business men protecting their job security, politicians trying to promote an agenda or ideologists trying to force everyone to change to a lower standard of living with those making the most money supporting those countries or groups or individuals making the least money.

IMHO.

Sun

************************************************** ***************************
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7003622.ece

From The Times
January 27, 2010
Science chief John Beddington calls for honesty on climate change

The IPCC's 2007 report that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 has exposed a wider problem with the way that some evidence was presented
Ben Webster, Environment Editor

The impact of global warming has been exaggerated by some scientists and there is an urgent need for more honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change, according to the Government’s chief scientific adviser.

John Beddington was speaking to The Times in the wake of an admission by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that it grossly overstated the rate at which Himalayan glaciers were receding.

Professor Beddington said that climate scientists should be less hostile to sceptics who questioned man-made global warming. He condemned scientists who refused to publish the data underpinning their reports.

He said that public confidence in climate science would be improved if there were more openness about its uncertainties, even if that meant admitting that sceptics had been right on some hotly-disputed issues.

He said: “I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed.”

He said that the false claim in the IPCC’s 2007 report that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 had exposed a wider problem with the way that some evidence was presented.

“Certain unqualified statements have been unfortunate. We have a problem in communicating uncertainty. There’s definitely an issue there. If there wasn’t, there wouldn’t be the level of scepticism. All of these predictions have to be caveated by saying, ‘There’s a level of uncertainty about that’.”

Professor Beddington said that particular caution was needed when communicating predictions about climate change made with the help of computer models.

“It’s unchallengeable that CO2 traps heat and warms the Earth and that burning fossil fuels shoves billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. But where you can get challenges is on the speed of change.

“When you get into large-scale climate modelling there are quite substantial uncertainties. On the rate of change and the local effects, there are uncertainties both in terms of empirical evidence and the climate models themselves.”

He said that it was wrong for scientists to refuse to disclose their data to their critics: “I think, wherever possible, we should try to ensure there is openness and that source material is available for the whole scientific community.”

He added: “There is a danger that people can manipulate the data, but the benefits from being open far outweigh that danger.”

Phil Jones, the director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and a contributor to the IPCC’s reports, has been forced to stand down while an investigation takes place into leaked e-mails allegedly showing that he attempted to conceal data.

In response to one request for data Professor Jones wrote: “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Professor Beddington said that uncertainty about some aspects of climate science should not be used as an excuse for inaction: “Some people ask why we should act when scientists say they are only 90 per cent certain about the problem. But would you get on a plane that had a 10 per cent chance of landing?”

Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia, said: “Climate scientists get kudos from working on an issue in the public eye but with that kudos comes responsibility. Being open with data is part of that responsibility.”

He criticised Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, for his dismissive response last November to research suggesting that the UN body had overstated the threat to the glaciers. Mr Pachauri described it as “voodoo science”.

Professor Hulme said: “Pachauri’s choice of words has not been good. The question of whether he is the right person to lead the IPCC is for the 193 countries who make up its governing body. It’s a political decision.”

Blowing hot and cold

Glaciers

The IPCC says its statement on melting glaciers was based on a report it misquoted by WWF, a lobby group, which took its information from a report in New Scientist based on an interview with a glaciologist who claims he was misquoted. Most glaciologists say that the Himalayan glaciers are so thick that they would take hundreds of years to melt

Sea levels

The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research says sea levels could rise by 6ft by 2100, a prediction based on the 7in rise in sea levels from 1881-2001, which it attributed to a 0.7C rise in temperatures. It assumed a rise of 6.4C by 2100 would melt the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets.

UK Climate Projections, published last year by the Government, predicted a rise of one to two feet by 2095

Arctic sea ice

Cambridge University’s Polar Ocean Physics Group has claimed that sea ice will have disappeared from the North Pole in summer by 2020. However, in the past two summers the total area of sea ice in the Arctic has grown substantially

Global temperatures

The Met Office predicts that this year is “more likely than not” to be the world’s warmest year on record. It claims the El Niño effect will join forces with the warming effect of manmade greenhouse gases.

Some scientists say that there is a warming bias in Met Office long-range forecasts which has resulted in it regularly overstating the warming trend

TonyB

02-14-2010, 01:11 PM

Hi all. I ahvnt read the all the posts but...global warming is not anthropogenic (man made), It is happening yes but not do to man. I have a degree in Climatology form the UNiversity of Calgary and have been studying this stuff for five years. Technically we are still in an iceage and just so happen to be in retreat right now. Soon (not in our life times) the ice will come back just to leave again. Its been happening for the last 2 million years or so. People like Al Gore and David Suzuki and just getting rich off of scaring people. The IPCC reports (which I have read all of them, very lengthy) are alos very biased.

Just my opinion but its backed up with fact

Sundancefisher

02-14-2010, 08:18 PM

Sundancefisher

02-14-2010, 08:19 PM

Apparently I missed Amazongate :-)

The pro side claims engineers and mathematicians and statisticians that understand how the common sense aspects of the often very wide ranging claims of doom are not "experts".

Again we have the IPCC using non peer reviewed and non scientists making claims without study that is widely accepted by policy makers and paranoid people as true.

Well...the cat is out of the bag once again.

Sigh...how can I believe with this crazy stuff happening?

Sun

************************************************** **********
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009705.ece

From The Sunday Times
January 31, 2010
The UN climate panel and the rainforest claim
Jonathan Leake

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri

IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri is fighting to keep his job after a barrage of criticism

A STARTLING report by the United Nations climate watchdog that global warming might wipe out 40% of the Amazon rainforest was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in its 2007 benchmark report that even a slight change in rainfall could see swathes of the rainforest rapidly replaced by savanna grassland.

The source for its claim was a report from WWF, an environmental pressure group, which was authored by two green activists. They had based their “research” on a study published in Nature, the science journal, which did not assess rainfall but in fact looked at the impact on the forest of human activity such as logging and burning. This weekend WWF said it was launching an internal inquiry into the study.

This is the third time in as many weeks that serious doubts have been raised over the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. Two weeks ago, after reports in The Sunday Times, it was forced to retract a warning that climate change was likely to melt the Himalayan glaciers by 2035. That warning was also based on claims in a WWF report.
Related Links

* Real threat to rainforest

* Bad science needs good scrutiny

* Panel ignored warnings on glacier error

The IPCC has been put on the defensive as well over its claims that climate change may be increasing the severity and frequency of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.

This weekend Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, was fighting to keep his job after a barrage of criticism.

Scientists fear the controversies will be used by climate change sceptics to sway public opinion to ignore global warming — even though the fundamental science, that greenhouse gases can heat the world, remains strong.

The latest controversy originates in a report called A Global Review of Forest Fires, which WWF published in 2000. It was commissioned from Andrew Rowell, a freelance journalist and green campaigner who has worked for Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and anti-smoking organisations. The second author was Peter Moore, a campaigner and policy analyst with WWF.

In their report they suggested that “up to 40% of Brazilian rainforest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall” but made clear that this was because drier forests were more likely to catch fire.

The IPCC report picked up this reference but expanded it to cover the whole Amazon. It also suggested that a slight reduction in rainfall would kill many trees directly, not just by contributing to more fires.

It said: “Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state. It is more probable that forests will be replaced by ecosystems that have more resistance to multiple stresses caused by temperature increase, droughts and fires, such as tropical savannas.”

Simon Lewis, a Royal Society research fellow at Leeds University who specialises in tropical forest ecology, described the section of Rowell and Moore’s report predicting the potential destruction of large swathes of rainforest as “a mess”.

“The Nature paper is about the interactions of logging damage, fire and periodic droughts, all extremely important in understanding the vulnerability of Amazon forest to drought, but is not related to the vulnerability of these forests to reductions in rainfall,” he said.

“In my opinion the Rowell and Moore report should not have been cited; it contains no primary research data.”

WWF said it prided itself on the accuracy of its reports and was investigating the latest concerns. “We have a team of people looking at this internationally,” said Keith Allott, its climate change campaigner.

Scientists such as Lewis are demanding that the IPCC ban the use of reports from pressure groups. They fear that environmental campaign groups are bound to cherry-pick the scientific literature that confirms their beliefs and ignore the rest.

It was exactly this process that lay behind the bogus claim that the Himalayan glaciers were likely to melt by 2035 — a suggestion that got into another WWF report and was then used by the IPCC.

Georg Kaser, a glaciologist who was a lead author on the last IPCC report, said: “Groups like WWF are not scientists and they are not professionally trained to manage data. They may have good intentions but it opens the way to mistakes.”

Research by Richard North

************************************************** *********

Du Jour-gate flavor: Amazon
25 01 2010

The IPCC “Flavor of the day”-gate is now the Amazon Rain Forest. What will tomorrow’s flavor be?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3640/3300527819_6b9a79eb4a.jpg

James Delingpole of the Telegraph says this better than I ever could, so I’ll provide his summary here. Note that there are plenty more cases of unsubstantiated non peer reviewed references in the IPCC report, a list of which you can see here. For those wondering what “Load of porkies” means, see this.

Delingpole relays North’s analysis:

Here’s the latest development, courtesy of Dr Richard North – and it’s a cracker. It seems that, not content with having lied to us about shrinking glaciers, increasing hurricanes, and rising sea levels, the IPCC’s latest assessment report also told us a complete load of porkies about the danger posed by climate change to the Amazon rainforest.

This is to be found in Chapter 13 of the Working Group II report, the same part of the IPCC fourth assessment report in which the “Glaciergate” claims are made. There, is the startling claim that:

At first sight, the reference looks kosher enough but, following it through, one sees:

This, then appears to be another WWF report, carried out in conjunction with the IUCN – The International Union for Conservation of Nature.

The link given is no longer active, but the report is on the IUCN website here. Furthermore, the IUCN along with WWF is another advocacy group and the report is not peer-reviewed. According to IPCC rules, it should not have been used as a primary source.

It gets even better. The two expert authors of the WWF report so casually cited by the IPCC as part of its, ahem, “robust” “peer-reviewed” process weren’t even Amazon specialists. One, Dr PF Moore, is a policy analyst:

My background and experience around the world has required and developed high-level policy and analytical skills. I have a strong understanding of government administration, legislative review, analysis and inquiries generated through involvement in or management of the Australian Regional Forest Agreement process, Parliamentary and Government inquiries, Coronial inquiries and public submissions on water pricing, access and use rights and native vegetation legislation in Australia and fire and natural resources laws, regulations and policies in Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, South Africa and Malaysia.

And the lead author Andy Rowell is a freelance journalist (for the Guardian, natch) and green activist:

Andy Rowell is a freelance writer and Investigative journalist with over 12 years’ experience on environmental, food, health and globalization issues. Rowell has undertaken cutting-edge investigations for, amongst others, Action on Smoking and Health, The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, IFAW, the Pan American Health Organization, Project Underground, the World Health Organization, World in Action and WWF.

But the IPCC’s shamelessness did not end there. Dr North has searched the WWF’s reports high and low but can find no evidence of a statement to support the IPCC’s claim that “40 per cent” of the Amazon is threatened by climate change. (Logging and farm expansion are a much more plausible threat).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/25/d-jour-gate-flavor-amazon/

http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0204-amazongate.html

Sundancefisher

02-14-2010, 11:02 PM

Call upon the UN to improve it's credibility and scientific integrity!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026932.ece

****************************************
From The Times
February 15, 2010
UN must investigate warming ‘bias’, says former climate chief
‘Every error exaggerated the impact of change’
Bob Watson of Defra

Robert Watson has held talks with Al Gore over creating a research group
Ben Webster, Environment Editor, and Robin Pagnamenta, Energy Editor

The UN body that advises world leaders on climate change must investigate an apparent bias in its report that resulted in several exaggerations of the impact of global warming, according to its former chairman.

In an interview with The Times Robert Watson said that all the errors exposed so far in the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) resulted in overstatements of the severity of the problem.

Professor Watson, currently chief scientific adviser to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said that if the errors had just been innocent mistakes, as has been claimed by the current chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, some would probably have understated the impact of climate change.

The errors have emerged in the past month after simple checking of the sources cited by the 2,500 scientists who produced the report.

The report falsely claimed that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 when evidence suggests that they will survive for another 300 years. It also claimed that global warming could cut rain-fed North African crop production by up to 50 per cent by 2020. A senior IPCC contributor has since admitted that there is no evidence to support this claim.

The Dutch Government has asked the IPCC to correct its claim that more than half the Netherlands is below sea level. The environment ministry said that only 26 per cent of the country was below sea level.

Professor Watson, who served as chairman of the IPCC from 1997-2002, said: “The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened.”

He said that the IPCC should employ graduate science students to check the sources of each claim made in its next report, due in 2013. “Graduate students would love to be involved and they could really dig into the references and see if they really do support what is being said.”

He said that the next report should acknowledge that some scientists believed the planet was warming at a much slower rate than has been claimed by the majority of scientists.

“We should always be challenged by sceptics,” he said. “The IPCC’s job is to weigh up the evidence. If it can’t be dismissed, it should be included in the report. Point out it’s in the minority and, if you can’t say why it’s wrong, just say it’s a different view.”

Dr Pachauri has not responded to questions put to him by The Times, despite sending a text message saying that he would do so.

Professor Watson has held discussions with Al Gore, the former US Vice-President, about creating a new climate research group to supplement the work of the IPCC and to help restore the credibility of climate science.

He said that the scheme to create what he called a “Wikipedia for climate change” was at an early stage but the intention was to establish an online network of climate science research available to anyone with access to the internet and subject to permanent peer review by other scientists.

He said that the project would allow scientists to “synthesise all of the observational record in real-time, not every 5-7 years like the IPCC”.

He rejected concerns that the project would undermine the IPCC’s authority. “It would have to be done so it was complimentary and not a challenge to the IPCC,” he said.

A spokesman for Mr Gore’s office in Nashville, Tennessee, declined to comment on the project.

Meanwhile, a member of the inquiry team investigating allegations of misconduct by climate scientists has admitted that he holds strong views on climate change and that this contradicts a founding principle of the inquiry. Geoffrey Boulton, who was appointed last week by the inquiry chairman, Sir Muir Russell, said he believed that human activities were causing global warming.

Sir Muir issued a statement last week claiming that the inquiry members, who are investigating leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia, did not have a “predetermined view on climate change and climate science”.

Professor Boulton told The Times: “I may be rapped over the knuckles by Sir Muir for saying this, but I think that statement needs to be clarified. I think the committee needs someone like me who is close to the field of climate change and it would be quite amazing if that person didn’t have a view on one side or the other.”

TonyB

02-15-2010, 11:59 AM

I would of interpreted the data as reaching the peak warming and probably next due for a drop back to a mini ice age based upon the historical data. Do you think we have not reached the peak yet?

Yes I would agree with that. If we havnt hit it yet we will very soon. If I learned one thing in my degree it is that we (scientists) on either side of the argument, dont know enough about the climate system yet and interactions within the sytem to really know what is happening or going to happen.

TonyB

02-15-2010, 12:01 PM

And when i said "we" I really ment they, Iam not claiiming to be an expert, i've just studied a helluva a lot of what the "experts" seem to think

Alberta Separatist

02-15-2010, 12:25 PM

I am extremely skeptical about ANYTHING Maurice Strong is connected to.

TreeGuy

02-15-2010, 02:39 PM

Professor Watson has held discussions with Al Gore, the former US Vice-President, about creating a new climate research group to supplement the work of the IPCC and to help restore the credibility of climate science.

Wow........just wow! You know you're in trouble when you are turning to al gore to restore credibility.:rolleye2:

Where's the North American media these days? Where's the oh so esteemed david suziki? What's that liar have to say for himself? In fact, where the hell is ANYONE who supported this thing? Hello.......we're waiting. I believe those of us 'deniers' are owed not only an explaination, but an appology!

Alberta Separatist

02-15-2010, 02:54 PM

I totally agree with TreeGuy!

Sundancefisher

02-15-2010, 07:55 PM

From The Times
February 16, 2010
How I made the Met Office admit its climate-change data was wrong
John Graham-Cumming

The history of science is filled with stories of amateur scientists who made significant contributions. In 1937 the American amateur astronomer Grote Reber built a pioneering dish-shaped radio telescope in his back garden and produced the first radio map of the sky. And in the 19th century the existence of dominant and recessive genes was described by a priest, Gregor Mendel, after years of experimentation with pea plants.

But with the advent of powerful home computers, even the humble amateur like myself can make a contribution.

Using my laptop and my knowledge of computer programming I accidentally uncovered errors in temperature data released by the Met Office that form part of the vital records used to show that the climate is changing. Although the errors don’t change the basic message of global warming, they do illustrate how open access to data means that many hands make light work of replicating and checking the work of professional scientists.

After e-mails and documents were taken from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia late last year, the Met Office decided to release global thermometer readings stretching back to 1850 that they use to show the rise in land temperatures. These records hadn’t been freely available to the public before, although graphs drawn using them had.

Apart from seeing Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth I’d paid little attention to the science of global warming until the e-mail leaks from UEA last year.

I trusted the news stories about the work of the IPCC, but I thought it would be a fun hobby project to write a program to read the Met Office records on global temperature readings and draw the sort of graphs that show how it’s hotter now than ever before.

Since my training is in mathematics and computing I thought it best to write self-checking code: I’m unfamiliar with the science of climate change and so having my program perform internal checks for consistency was vital to making sure I didn’t make a mistake.

To my surprise the program complained about average temperatures in Australia and New Zealand. At first I assumed I’d made a mistake in the code and used a pocket calculator to double check the calculations.

The result was unequivocal: something was wrong with the average temperature data in Oceania. And I also stumbled upon other small errors in calculations.

About a week after I’d told the Met Office about these problems I received a response confirming that I was correct: a problem in the process of updating Met Office records had caused the wrong average temperatures to be reported. Last month the Met Office updated their public temperature records to include my corrections.

John Graham-Cumming is a programmer and author of The Geek Atlas

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7028418.ece

Sundancefisher

02-16-2010, 03:09 PM

Jeepers Creepers.

Another blunder by the IPCC

Some fanatics are trying to blame the Australian drought on Climate Change. The IPCC picks Australia as a place to be concerned about. Things get said and assumptions are made that it was based upon science.

Apparently there does not seem to be any data to support this. The IPCC is having to make another change. Apparently there have been regular droughts and wildfires in Australia for eons and in fact some animals and plants evolved to cope with the seasonal grass fires.

************************************************** *****
http://www.warwickhu...com/blog/?p=201

South East Australian heatwave in January 2009 is not detectable in “global warming” data
March 4th, 2009 by Warwick Hughes

Increasingly, we are hearing in the media that the January-February south east Australian heatwave and disastrous bushfires in Victoria that have killed over 200 people are the result of climate change or global warming.

This map shows the 10 degree grid cell that the temperature data graphs below is collected from.

SE Australia grid cells

Here is what the local region component of global temperature data speaks to us about January 2009 vs long term trends for South East Australia. These graphics of monthly temperature anomalies from land stations demonstrate that FROM 1880 THERE IS NO WARMING IN SOUTH EAST AUSTRALIA. February data is not yet in but can be added later.

The first graphic is from the UK Met Office – Hadley Centre, their latest CRUTEM3 global land data which has evolved from the datsets of P.D. Jones et al of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of Norwich. These data show a very slight and statistically insignificant warming of 0.03 degrees from 1880 to Jan 2009.

Note the pre 1880 data is riddled with gaps.

CRUTEM3 trend 1880-2009 SE Australia

The second graphic is generated by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) lead by the well known greenhouse warming proponent, Dr. James Hansen.

GISS monthly anomalies shows that SE Australia between 140-150E and 30-40S has a miniscule cooling trend over the 1549 months from Jan 1880 to Jan 2009 which would not be statistically significant from zero.

GISS temperature trend SE Australia 1880-2009

Both sets of data are made available through the The Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute who have a web site KNMI Climate Explorer, where it is possible to download a huge range of global climate data.

First let us be clear that “global warming” is measured by monthly mean temperature anomalies, so if a signature can not be seen in that context, then the case for a link between heatwaves – bushfires – global warming, is just arm-waving speculation.

Mean temperature = the average of night and day.

Blaming the 2009 Victorian bushfires on climate change or global warming is likely to become one of those “self evident truths” that our Governments and green media love so much.

It is interesting to remember what the “official” data show and that is that although there have been periods of both warming and cooling over south east Australia for 129 years, these cancel out and there is no overall trend.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Posted in BoM Australia, IPCC, Jones et al, News and Views, Surface Record | 1 Comment »

Sundancefisher

02-16-2010, 08:33 PM

Lowry: Re-open case for catastrophic climate change

By Rich Lowry

National Review
Updated: 02/16/2010 12:30:27 PM MST

Climate alarmists conjured a world where nothing was certain but death, taxes and catastrophic global warming. They used this presumed scientific certainty as a bludgeon against the skeptics they deemed "deniers," a word meant to have the whiff of Holocaust denial.

All in the cause of hustling the world into a grand carbon-rationing scheme. Any questions about the evidence for the cataclysmic projections, any concerns about the costs and benefits were trumped by that fearsome scientific "consensus," which had "settled" the important questions.

A funny thing happened to this "consensus" on the way to its inevitable triumph, though. Its propagators have been forced to admit fallibility. For the cause of genuine science, this is a small step forward; for the cause of climate alarmism, it's a giant leap backward. The rush to "save the planet" cannot accommodate any doubt, or it loses the panicked momentum necessary for a retooling of modern economic life.

Phil Jones is the director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, a key "consensus" institution that has recently been caught up in an e-mail scandal revealing a mind-set of global-warming advocacy rather than dispassionate inquiry. Asked by the BBC what it means when scientists say "the debate on climate change is over," the keeper of the flame sounded chastened. "I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this," Jones said. "This is not my view. There is
Advertisement
still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the ... past as well."

Jones discussed the highly contentious "medieval warming period." If global temperatures were warmer than today back in 800-1300 A.D. -- about a thousand years before Henry Ford's assembly lines began spitting out automobiles -- it suggests that natural factors have a large hand in climate change, a concession that climate alarmists are loath to make. Jones said we don't know if the warming in this period was global in extent since paleoclimatic records are sketchy. If it was, and if temperatures were higher than now, "then obviously the late 20th century warmth would not be unprecedented."

Jones also noted that there hasn't been statistically significant warming since 1995, although the cooling since 2002 hasn't been statistically significant either.

All of this is like a cardinal of the Catholic Church saying the evidence for apostolic succession is still open to debate.

The other main organ of the climate "consensus" is the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It won the Nobel Peace Prize for its 2007 report, which turned out to be so riddled with errors it could have been researched on Wikipedia. It said Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, warned that global warming could reduce crop yields in Africa by 50 percent by 2020, and linked warming to the increased economic cost of natural disasters -- all nonsense.

These aren't random errors. As former head of the IPCC, the British scientist Robert Watson, notes, "The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact."

Too many of the creators and guardians of the "consensus" desperately wanted to believe in it. As self-proclaimed defenders of science, they should have brushed up on their Enlightenment. "Doubt is not a pleasant mental state," said Voltaire, "but certainty is a ridiculous one." The latest revelations don't disprove the warming of the 20th century or mean that carbon emissions played no role. But by highlighting the uncertainty of the paleoclimatic data and the models on which alarmism has been built, they constitute a shattering blow to the case for radical, immediate action.

In The Boston Globe , MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel marshals a new argument for fighting warming: "We do not have the luxury of waiting for scientific certainty, which will never come." Really? That's not what we were told even a few months ago -- before climate-alarmism acknowledged doubt.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_george_berkin/2010/02/skeptical_on_global_warming.html

Sundancefisher

02-16-2010, 08:35 PM

Three Major Firms Pull Out of Climate Change Alliance

FOXNews.com

ConocoPhillips, BP America and Caterpillar pulled out of a leading alliance of businesses and environmental groups pushing for climate change legislation on Tuesday, citing complaints that the bills under consideration are unfair to American industry.

The sudden pullout of three corporate giants from a leading alliance of businesses and environmental groups could be the death knell for climate change legislation languishing on Capitol Hill.

ConocoPhillips, BP America and Caterpillar's announced Tuesday they will pull out of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, citing complaints that the bills now in Congress are unfair to American industry.

BP spokesman Ronnie Chappell said Tuesday's announcements are not a statement on the likelihood that climate change legislation will fail.

"I would never speculate as to what would happen with a pending piece of legislation," Chappell said.

But he said the bills on the table no longer "conform" with what USCAP envisioned for a climate change bill. He said the legislation -- including one bill that passed the House but is stalled in the Senate -- does not provide adequate protections to U.S. refineries.

If any bills are passed, they will result in more oil imports, the closure of U.S. refineries and the loss of U.S. jobs. Plus he said it's too hard on the transportation sector.

"We do not believe that the bills now pending in Congress conform to the USCAP blueprint, in that a disproportionate share of the emissions reductions and disproportionate share of the cost fall on the transportation sector and on transportation consumers and motorists," he said.

Both BP America and Caterpillar were founding members of the group.

ConocoPhillips CEO Jim Mulva also said in a statement that the House and Senate bills "disadvantaged the transportation sector and its consumers" and "unfairly penalized" domestic refineries that would have to face international competition on an unbalanced playing field.

"We believe greater attention and resources need to be dedicated to reversing these missed opportunities, and our actions today are part of that effort," he said.

The companies described their withdrawal from the group as a way to advocate for climate change legislation in other ways.

"Our position on the need for comprehensive climate change legislation has not changed," Chappell said. "We can be a more effective voice in the climate change debate if we participate as BP and not as part of a larger organization. ... We will still be very active in the climate change discussions and we will still be advocating for legislation that conforms to the USCAP blueprint."

USCAP released a brief statement Tuesday announcing that the member companies were leaving the organization. The group said the companies "provided invaluable assistance, expertise and significant commitments of time and resources" in pushing for a major climate bill.

The group reiterated its view that Congress should act on a climate bill this year.

"We believe that U.S. action on energy and climate legislation in 2010 will preserve and create American jobs, secure our energy future and generate new investment in the global clean energy economy," the statement said.

The statement noted that while three companies were leaving, others have recently joined and USCAP "expects to add new members in the coming months."

The push for climate change legislation has been hampered by more than just concern over its impact on the U.S. economy. The record snowfall this year in Washington, D.C., and other areas of the country has fueled skeptics who see the snow-covered capital as evidence that global warming is a myth, though scientists argue that temperatures have risen over the long term and that extreme weather -- even snow -- can be a symptom of climate change.

The U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December ended with a non-binding agreement. And that was preceded by controversy over leaked e-mails from a British climate research center that appeared to show scientists discussing ways to obscure certain climate data.

Add to that Republican Scott Brown's election to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts in January -- a win that broke the Democrats' 60-vote filibuster-proof majority.

The conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute seized on the departure of the three companies from USCAP as a sign that "cap-and-trade legislation is dead in the U.S. Congress and that global warming alarmism is collapsing rapidly."

FoxNews.com's Judson Berger contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/16/major-firms-pull-climate-change-alliance/?test=latestnews

Sundancefisher

02-16-2010, 08:37 PM

This is summarizing what more and more people are thinking. Without better science...we just can't say one way or another.

*************************
Skeptical on global warming
By George Berkin
February 14, 2010, 10:26PM

Did you catch the news that every state in the union had snow on the ground over the weekend?

Even in Hawaii, some reported seeing snow at higher elevations. Record snowfall totals were also recorded in the nation’s capital and elsewhere. More snow is expected as this week begins.

Count me among the skeptics on global warming.

I thought about this, as many people in New Jersey and beyond did, as I dug out my car this past week. For true believers in global warming, the recent one-two punches of Arctic weather could not have been encouraging.

And Sunday (today), the professor at the center of the “Climategate” affair said that there’s been no “statistically significant” warming over the past 15 years. He also cast doubt on whether man’s activity has an effect on Earth temperatures.

But true believers, of course, never stop believing. The New York Times, for example, noticed last week that many people, like me, expressed skepticism about the supposed fact of global warming in light of the recent snowstorms, or that “climate change” is caused by humans.

It also quoted a global warming “expert” saying that the snowstorms were somehow evidence of global warming – although it failed to explain just how that might work.

But surely, conservatives are right to be skeptical about pronouncements of global warming. Perhaps global warming – or “climate change,” to use the de rigueur phrase – may in fact be an accurate prediction of our ecological future. But as a conservative, I’m skeptical.

Why? First, conservatives are skeptical about global warming for just the reason that many liberals seem to embrace global warming: “solving” the problem promises to involve a huge increase in government intervention in the private sector.

Not the least of the intrusion by government will be laws that will require industrialized nations to decrease their total carbon emissions. Sharpening the sting, such laws will follow the lead of international authorities, likely taking away some U.S. sovereignty over how Americans practice business.

Such laws will especially harm developing nations with a large investment in heavy industry. (Some have refused to sign the Kyoto accords.) But U.S. industry would also be harmed, as then-President George W. Bush noted when he refused to sign that treaty.

There may be good reasons for a global government response, but it sure feels like power-hungry globalists (am I being too cynical here?) trying to come up with yet another reason why they should run our lives. Radical environmentalism also seems to be a tool for a radical redistribution of wealth.

Furthermore, evoking a specter of global warming has more than a whiff of old-fashioned liberal anti-business sentiment. The fat cat businessman smoking a stogie and oppressing the proletariat was long a favorite anti-capitalist stereotype. Today’s crusade against cars and factories seems to be an updated repackaging of that old boogeyman.

But conservatives are also skeptical about claims that Planet Earth is undergoing global warming because we’ve been snookered before by so-called “science,” as defined by the elites.

For example, after Rachel Carson excoriated DDT in her popular book, “Silent Spring” (think Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”), the use of the pesticide dropped dramatically in Africa. All well and good, except that the mosquito population spiked up as a result, and millions of people contracted malaria. Untold numbers died of the disease, which had previously been controlled by the much-maligned pesticide.

Many conservatives are also skeptical about global warming because it seems the latest incarnation of environmentalism as an alternate religion.

We should, of course, take good care of the environment. After all, we live here. Bad water and bad air make for bad health.

And from a biblical perspective, we are also called on to be good stewards of the “property” entrusted to us. So, there’s nothing wrong with an intelligent tending to Planet Earth.

But care of the planet can easily veer off into a worship of Mother Earth. Under that philosophy, instead of the planet being under our dominion, we become merely one part of the larger ecosystem.

That’s pagan religion, nature worship, as old as the hills. That may be very appealing to some, because it provides something larger than self. But such an approach fails to satisfy anyone with a biblical perspective – or even someone with a secular, but conservative, perspective, for that matter.

But what about the evidence for global warming? Surely there’s lots of evidence. Surely scientists haven’t made up their case out of whole cloth?

Maybe yes, maybe no.

Probably most readers have heard of the flap over global warming “data” that was reportedly tinkered with. Much of the Internet controversy, as we know, centered on just how hackers accessed the data. But the whole episode also makes this conservative just a little skeptical about just how conclusive the supposed evidence for global warming really is.

The heart of the matter, it seems to me, is how one extrapolates from temperature readings across several previous decades.

Even those who have concluded that the surface of the earth is heating up measure the rise in temperature in mere fractions of a degree over many years.

The question, then, is how to predict the measurements several decades out. Imagine a wave, or a string of “S” curves on their sides. Looking at a part of the curve where the points are swinging upward, are we to conclude an ever higher rise? Or do we see a topping off, followed by a fall?

In other words, perhaps average temperatures are really cyclical.

To the chagrin of many scientists convinced of global warming – not to mention the delight of some conservative commentators – temperature figures were extrapolated in the 1970s as forecasting a global cooling.

But ask the man on the street, and the evidence for global warming is entirely anecdotal. You’ve seen those ice caps melting, with penguins adrift on suddenly separated ice floes.

But last week, such anecdotal evidence got buried in huge drifts of snow.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_george_berkin/2010/02/skeptical_on_global_warming.html

Sundancefisher

02-16-2010, 08:40 PM

Climate-Change Debate Is Heating Up in Deep Freeze

By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: February 10, 2010

WASHINGTON — As millions of people along the East Coast hole up in their snowbound homes, the two sides in the climate-change debate are seizing on the mounting drifts to bolster their arguments.

Skeptics of global warming are using the record-setting snows to mock those who warn of dangerous human-driven climate change — this looks more like global cooling, they taunt.

Most climate scientists respond that the ferocious storms are consistent with forecasts that a heating planet will produce more frequent and more intense weather events.

But some independent climate experts say the blizzards in the Northeast no more prove that the planet is cooling than the lack of snow in Vancouver or the downpours in Southern California prove that it is warming.

As an illustration of their point of view, the family of Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, a leading climate skeptic in Congress, built a six-foot-tall igloo on Capitol Hill and put a cardboard sign on top that read “Al Gore’s New Home.”

The extreme weather, Mr. Inhofe said by e-mail, reinforced doubts about scientists’ conclusion that global warming was “unequivocal” and most likely caused by human activity.

Nonsense, responded Joseph Romm, a climate-change expert and former Energy Department official who writes about climate issues at the liberal Center for American Progress.

“Ideologues in the Senate keep pushing the anti-scientific disinformation that big snowstorms are evidence against human-caused global warming,” Mr. Romm wrote on Wednesday.

It is perhaps not coincidental that the snowstorm scuffle is playing out against a background of recent climate controversies: In recent months, global-warming critics have assailed a 2007 report by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and have claimed that e-mail messages and documents plucked from a server at a climate research center in Britain raise doubts about the academic integrity of some climate scientists. Earlier this week, Rush Limbaugh and other conservative commentators made light of the fact that the announcement of the creation of a new federal climate service on Monday had to be conducted by conference call, rather than news conference, because the federal government was shuttered by the storm.

Matt Drudge, who delights in tweaking climate-change enthusiasts, noted on his Web sitethat a Senate hearing on global warming this week was canceled because of the weather.

As the first blizzard howled last weekend, the Virginia Republican Party put up an advertisement on the Web — titled “12 Inches of Global Warming” — criticizing two Virginia Democrats, Representatives Rick Boucher and Tom Perriello, who voted for the federal cap-and-trade legislation last year. The advertisement urges voters to call Mr. Boucher and Mr. Perriello to ask if they will help with the shoveling.

Speculating on the meaning of severe weather events is not new. Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and a deadly heat wave in Europe in the summer of 2003 incited similar arguments about what such extremes might — or might not — say about the planet’s climate.

Climate scientists say that no individual episode of severe weather can be attributed to global climate trends, though there is evidence that such events will probably become more frequent as global temperatures rise.

Jeff Masters, a meteorologist who writes on the Weather Underground blog, said that the recent snows do not, by themselves, demonstrate anything about the long-term trajectory of the planet. Climate is, by definition, a measure of decades and centuries, not months or years.

But Dr. Masters also said that government and academic studies had consistently predicted an increasing frequency of just these kinds of record-setting storms, because warmer air carries more moisture.

“Of course,” he wrote on his blog Wednesday as new snows produced white-out conditions in much of the Eastern half of the country, “both climate-change contrarians and climate-change scientists agree that no single weather event can be blamed on climate change.

“However,” he continued, “one can ‘load the dice’ in favor of events that used to be rare — or unheard of — if the climate is changing to a new state.”

A federal government report issued last year, intended to be the authoritative statement of known climate trends in the United States, pointed to the likelihood of more frequent snowstorms in the Northeast and less frequent snow in the South and Southeast as a result of long-term temperature and precipitation patterns. The Climate Impacts report, from the multiagency United States Global Change Research Program, also projected more intense drought in the Southwest and more powerful Gulf Coast hurricanes because of warming.

In other words, if the government scientists are correct, look for more snow.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/science/earth/11climate.html

Sundancefisher

02-17-2010, 01:06 PM

Stratospheric Water Vapor Is a Global Warming Wild Card
ScienceDaily (Feb. 1, 2010) — A 10 percent drop in water vapor ten miles above Earth's surface has had a big impact on global warming, say researchers in a study published online January 28 in the journal Science. The findings might help explain why global surface temperatures have not risen as fast in the last ten years as they did in the 1980s and 1990s.

Observations from satellites and balloons show that stratospheric water vapor has had its ups and downs lately, increasing in the 1980s and 1990s, and then dropping after 2000. The authors show that these changes occurred precisely in a narrow altitude region of the stratosphere where they would have the biggest effects on climate.

Water vapor is a highly variable gas and has long been recognized as an important player in the cocktail of greenhouse gases -- carbon dioxide, methane, halocarbons, nitrous oxide, and others -- that affect climate.

"Current climate models do a remarkable job on water vapor near the surface. But this is different -- it's a thin wedge of the upper atmosphere that packs a wallop from one decade to the next in a way we didn't expect," says Susan Solomon, NOAA senior scientist and first author of the study.

Since 2000, water vapor in the stratosphere decreased by about 10 percent. The reason for the recent decline in water vapor is unknown. The new study used calculations and models to show that the cooling from this change caused surface temperatures to increase about 25 percent more slowly than they would have otherwise, due only to the increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

An increase in stratospheric water vapor in the 1990s likely had the opposite effect of increasing the rate of warming observed during that time by about 30 percent, the authors found.

The stratosphere is a region of the atmosphere from about eight to 30 miles above the Earth's surface. Water vapor enters the stratosphere mainly as air rises in the tropics. Previous studies suggested that stratospheric water vapor might contribute significantly to climate change. The new study is the first to relate water vapor in the stratosphere to the specific variations in warming of the past few decades.

Authors of the study are Susan Solomon, Karen Rosenlof, Robert Portmann, and John Daniel, all of the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) in Boulder, Colo.; Sean Davis and Todd Sanford, NOAA/ESRL and the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado; and Gian-Kasper Plattner, University of Bern, Switzerland.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100131145840.htm

Sundancefisher

02-19-2010, 12:24 PM

Taking sides in the wicked climate change debate
Last Updated: Sunday, January 24, 2010 | 2:14 PM ET Comments60Recommend16By Stephen Strauss, CBC News
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon admitted the UN climate summit in Copenhagen fell short of its goals but called it an important step toward a global agreement needed to combat climate change. (Heribert Proepper/Associated Press)"When it comes to climate change, the press seems to be obsessed with providing 'balanced' reporting," Geert de Cock, Sierra Club of Canada.

"Many media outlets overlooked the actual science that has informed this massive international meeting, choosing instead to focus on the 'he said, she said' musings of political pundits," Fraser Los, contributing editor of thegreenpages.

As the quotes above highlight, one of the reactions that came out of the Copenhagen meeting on climate change in December was a sense by many that the media was ignoring the "science" of global warming because it went against a classic diktat of journalism, which is to get the other side of the story.

I have a somewhat different take on the "other side" controversy. Part of the reason the media went looking for an opposite view on climate change was because two-sidedness was easy to convey.

On one side are most of the world's atmospheric scientists, who say that human-initiated emissions of greenhouse gases have started to seriously change the world's climate. On the other is a much smaller number of scientists who are saying that there is no evidence yet that humans are responsible for any of the slight warming we seem to have seen, and that future effects might not be so dire.

Participants in the debate can bring forward different amounts and examples of evidence, but there are definitely two sides to the issue.

Wicked problems
If you want to know what is profoundly confusing to a journalist writing about climate change, try to understand the difficulties of explaining issues of how to remedy a problem when they turn into what is called a "wicked problem."

A wicked problem is one in which the solution is not true or false but just better or worse. A wicked problem has no immediate or ultimate test for a solution and can be considered a symptom of another problem. (You can read a discussion of a wicked problem on Wikipedia).

If you want to know how wickedness works when looking at climate change, consider scientists' efforts to deal with the environmentally damaging belch of a cow. In 2006, the UN's Food and Drug Administration estimated that the planet's roughly 1.5 billion cattle and buffalo produced 37 per cent of all the methane that human-related activity releases. That is a big concern, because methane is 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. One molecule of methane traps as much heat as 20 molecules of carbon dioxide.

The methane is the fermented fruit of a cow's digestive inefficiency. The less efficient a cow is at breaking down the food it eats, the more methane comes out, usually as belches. Studies suggest that a cow belches somewhere between 100 and 500 litres of methane a day.

So what to do to cut down on this?

Welcome world: Copenhagen's interactive globe, one symbol of the climate change summit. (Cristian Charisius/Reuters) Last year, British Lord Nicholas Stern, who wrote an influential account of the costs of climate change in 2006, expressed a simple truth: "Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world's resources. A vegetarian diet is better."

A simple truth maybe, but assuming that six billion humans want to continue to eat and drink from the cow, it's not a widely acceptable one. So, for the last 15 or 20 years, agricultural scientists have been looking at how to make cattle more "fuel efficient" and in so doing, cut their methane emissions. About five years ago, Agriculture Canada scientists produced a much-quoted review of all that was known about what they called methane "mitigation strategies" in cattle. They list 19 possible remediation avenues, and I will just discuss a few.

One simple solution is to increase the amount of milk a cow produces. Yes, you have to feed them more, but studies suggest that making cows more efficient at turning feed into milk can lower their average methane emissions by anywhere from 17 to 26 per cent. A simple and tested way to boost milk production is to inject cattle with the bovine somatotropin hormone. In the U.S., this has increased milk production by an estimated 10 or 20 per cent and as consequence, lowered methane release by an estimated nine per cent.

From an environmental perspective, injecting hormones into cattle is good for the environment. Yet, you can almost hear organic food lovers shiver at what they would see as milk production wickedness.

Low-methane genes
Another way of reducing methane emissions is by altering what cattle eat. Letting cows graze on whatever grows naturally on the open range or in farmers' fields is, methane-reduction-wise, usually a bad idea. Cattle's digestive systems become most efficient when they eat — I quote the 2004 paper — "diets rich in starch … such as the ones commonly used in U.S. feedlots." So, people have experimented with reducing methane emissions by feeding cattle corn, or barley, or flax, or canola or cod liver oil or ground up bits of coconut.

Of course, this is wickedly contradictory because, I again quote the article, "the decision to reduce CH4 (methane) production should also take into account the importance of ruminants in converting fibrous feeds, unsuitable for human consumption, to high quality protein sources (i.e. milk and meat)."

That is, one of the reasons we have cultivated cows is that they can turn grasses that people can't eat into something that we can.

In their search for cow-stomach-efficiency, scientists have also looked at "manipulation of rumen fermentation." One such manipulation involves giving cattle substances such as antibiotics to kill the bacteria in their stomachs that work to turn feed into methane. So, what you might do is decrease methane emissions but increase worries about generalized antibiotic resistance in the animals and in humans who eat their meat and drink their milk.

There is an active research effort, most notably in this country at Stephen Moore's lab at the University of Alberta, to find the gene or genes that make some cattle produce less methane. The hope is to create strains of cattle that genetically are programmed to release less methane. But again, one worries about wickedness here, because previous studies on the increase of milk production in cattle have highlighted what we already know about genes — they effect not just one thing but many. The same traits that increase milk yield also decrease cow fertility, for example.

And I haven't even spoken about the efforts to take cattle excrement, break down the methane in it and produce biofuel. To be efficient, this fundamentally requires cattle not to roam free but be penned in some place where their excrement can be gathered.

What does this all say about the complaints of too much journalistic scientific "other-sidedness" that followed from Copenhagen?

To my mind, those who are concerned about dealing with human-induced climate change should instead of complaining be counting their blessings. Two-sidedness gives the impression one can choose sides and, with enough will and effort, bring about change. If one casts remedying the problem of climate change as not just a wicked problem but as what is being called a "super wicked problem," what people are likely to do is throw up their hands and their hearts.

What they are likely to say is: This is too complex to fix, and so, there is nothing we can do but await the grim dawning of a wicked future we can't change.

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/01/20/f-vp-strauss-climate-change.html

Sundancefisher

02-19-2010, 12:45 PM

Another Voice
Global doubting: Why the cloudy outlook?
Chicago Tribune
Feb. 18, 2010, 8:35PM

Three years ago, the United Nations issued what many considered the bible of climate change. The 3,000-page report famously said the evidence for long-term global warming was “unequivocal.” That's science-speak for: The argument's over. (Oh, and thanks in advance for the Nobel Peace Prize.)

But these days that thunderous 2007 verdict is sounding, well, a lot like tomorrow's weather forecast: It's very likely to be right. But there's some doubt.

Why the cloudy outlook? For starters, last month the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was forced to apologize for a gaudy — and false — claim that the Himalaya glaciers could disappear by 2035. Turns out that warning may be off by about 300 years.

Then came the reports that the head of the U.N. panel, Rajendra Pachauri, was battling accusations of financial conflicts of interest linked to his consulting business. He has denied doing anything improper, and so far no one has proved otherwise.

And then there's the scandal known as Climategate. That's the furor over purloined e-mails showing a few top climate scientists in England and the U.S. fuzzing over some contradictory evidence and conspiring to muzzle skeptics and bury research that didn't agree with their own findings.

So now the U.N. panel's credibility is heavily damaged — and so is the science of global warming. Doubts about the science are creeping in. Many people can't help but wonder: Are some of these climate scientists trying to find the facts or hide them?

You could see that uncertainty in the recent global warming summit in Copenhagen, where the world's powers agreed to absolutely nothing of consequence.

You can see it in the U.S. Senate, where an expensive and complicated cap-and-trade carbon bill is dead.

You can sense that public opinion is turning against the idea of massively expensive solutions.

Let's take a deep breath here. The climate skeptics have poked some holes in the science and exposed the apparently unethical behavior of a few top scientists. They've found some disturbing mistakes in the panel's report.

None of this disproves the essential conclusion that the planet is warming, and there's still strong evidence that it is driven by human activity. Even if you throw out the tainted research, the trends — rising sea levels, temperature changes and retreating polar ice — are convincing and have been documented over many decades by different groups of scientists around the world.

Yet the U.N.'s credibility on climate change is in tatters, and that's going to affect the debate. In a recent article in the journal Nature, five climate scientists called for a drastic overhaul of the panel. They want to make it smaller, more independent and nimble. They want to make sure that the scientists chosen to work on the reports aren't selected because they already agree with the global warming orthodoxy. That kind of change is essential to restore the panel's credibility.

Meanwhile, the critical question of what can and should be done to slow global warming remains open to debate, as it should.

One climate expert, John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, wrote in Nature: “The truth, and this is frustrating for policymakers, is that scientists' ignorance of the climate system is enormous. There is still much messy, contentious, snail-paced and now, hopefully, transparent work to do.”

Hmm. Humility. How refreshing. And scientific.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6874348.html

Sundancefisher

02-20-2010, 10:27 PM

I think this explains well the basic tenant that everyone wants to see.

Trust in the scientists that individual bias, ideology and personal agendas are not misrepresenting scientific theory as a whole.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8525879.stm

***********************************************
Science damaged by climate row says NAS chief Cicerone
By Victoria Gill
Science reporter, BBC News, San Diego

Ralph Cicerone
NAS chief Ralph Cicerone says crisis is a 'wake-up call' for researchers

Leading scientists say that the recent controversies surrounding climate research have damaged the image of science as a whole.

President of the US National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone, said scandals including the "climategate" e-mail row had eroded public trust in scientists.

His comment came at the annual American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in San Diego.

Dr Cicerone joined other renowned scientists on a panel at the event.

'Distrust has spread'

He said that the controversial e-mail exchanges about climate change data had caused people to suspect that scientists "oppressed free speech".

His fellow panel members, including Lord Martin Rees, president of the UK's Royal Society, agreed that scientists needed to be more open about their findings.

"There is some evidence that the distrust has spread," Dr Cicerone told BBC News. "There is a feeling that scientists are suppressing dissent, stifling their competitors through conspiracies."

Recent polls, including one carried out by the BBC, have suggested that climate scepticism is on the rise.

Dr Cicerone linked this shift in public feeling to the hacked e-mails and to recently publicised mistakes made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in one of its key reports.

'More transparency'

He said he was convinced that these events had had a wider knock-on effect.

"Public opinion polls are showing that the answers to questions like: 'how much do you respect scientists?' or 'are they behaving in disinterested ways?', have deteriorated in the last few months."

He said that this crisis of public confidence should be a wake-up call for researchers, and that the world had now "entered an era in which people expected more transparency".

"People expect us to do things more in the public light and we just have to get used to that," he said. "Just as science itself improves and self-corrects, I think our processes have to improve and self-correct."

Sundancefisher

02-20-2010, 10:35 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/19/AR2010021903046.html

********************

Global warming advocates ignore the boulders

By George F. Will
Sunday, February 21, 2010

Science, many scientists say, has been restored to her rightful throne because progressives have regained power. Progressives, say progressives, emulate the cool detachment of scientific discourse. So hear the calm, collected voice of a scientist lavishly honored by progressives, Rajendra Pachauri.

He is chairman of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which shared the 2007 version of the increasingly weird Nobel Peace Prize. Denouncing persons skeptical about the shrill certitudes of those who say global warming poses an imminent threat to the planet, he says:

"They are the same people who deny the link between smoking and cancer. They are people who say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder -- and I hope they put it on their faces every day."

Do not judge him as harshly as he speaks of others. Nothing prepared him for the unnerving horror of encountering disagreement. Global warming alarmists, long cosseted by echoing media, manifest an interesting incongruity -- hysteria and name-calling accompanying serene assertions about the "settled science" of climate change. Were it settled, we would be spared the hyperbole that amounts to Ring Lardner's "Shut up, he explained."

The global warming industry, like Alexander in the famous children's story, is having a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day. Actually, a bad three months, which began Nov. 19 with the publication of e-mails indicating attempts by scientists to massage data and suppress dissent in order to strengthen "evidence" of global warming.
ad_icon

But there already supposedly was a broad, deep and unassailable consensus. Strange.

Next came the failure of The World's Last -- We Really, Really Mean It -- Chance, a.k.a. the Copenhagen climate change summit. It was a nullity, and since then things have been getting worse for those trying to stampede the world into a spasm of prophylactic statism.

In 2007, before the economic downturn began enforcing seriousness and discouraging grandstanding, seven western U.S. states (and four Canadian provinces) decided to fix the planet on their own. California's Arnold Schwarzenegger intoned, "We cannot wait for the United States government to get its act together on the environment." The 11 jurisdictions formed what is now called the Western Climate Initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions starting in 2012.

Or not. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer recently suspended her state's participation in what has not yet begun, and some Utah legislators are reportedly considering a similar action. Brewer worries, sensibly, that it would impose costs on businesses and consumers. She also ordered reconsideration of Arizona's strict vehicle emission rules, modeled on incorrigible California's, lest they raise the cost of new cars.

Last week, BP America, ConocoPhillips and Caterpillar, three early members of the 31-member U.S. Climate Action Partnership, said: Oh, never mind. They withdrew from USCAP. It is a coalition of corporations and global warming alarm groups that was formed in 2007 when carbon rationing legislation seemed inevitable and collaboration with the rationers seemed prudent. A spokesman for Conoco said: "We need to spend time addressing the issues that impact our shareholders and consumers." What a concept.

Global warming skeptics, too, have erred. They have said there has been no statistically significant warming for 10 years. Phil Jones, former director of Britain's Climatic Research Unit, source of the leaked documents, admits it has been 15 years. Small wonder that support for radical remedial action, sacrificing wealth and freedom to combat warming, is melting faster than the Himalayan glaciers that an IPCC report asserted, without serious scientific support, could disappear by 2035.

Jones also says that if during what is called the Medieval Warm Period (circa 800-1300) global temperatures may have been warmer than today's, that would change the debate. Indeed it would. It would complicate the task of indicting contemporary civilization for today's supposedly unprecedented temperatures.

Last week, Todd Stern, America's special envoy for climate change -- yes, there is one; and people wonder where to begin cutting government -- warned that those interested in "undermining action on climate change" will seize on "whatever tidbit they can find." Tidbits like specious science, and the absence of warming?

It is tempting to say, only half in jest, that Stern's portfolio violates the First Amendment, which forbids government from undertaking the establishment of religion. A religion is what the faith in catastrophic man-made global warming has become. It is now a tissue of assertions impervious to evidence, assertions that everything, including a historic blizzard, supposedly confirms and nothing, not even the absence of warming, can falsify.

Sundancefisher

02-20-2010, 10:41 PM

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/climategates-guerrilla-warriors-pesky-foes-or-careful-watchdogs/article1474924/

************************************************** *

Jeet Heer

From Saturday's Globe and Mail Published on Friday, Feb. 19, 2010 5:48PM EST Last updated on Friday, Feb. 19, 2010 11:09PM EST

Much remains murky about the scandal dubbed Climategate, which involves the release last fall of e-mails leaked or stolen from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Initial accounts focused on e-mails that seemed to show scientists deliberately distorting research to make the danger of global warming appear worse than it is. Others have suggested this could be a misreading of the e-mails, most of which, though not all, simply suggest working professionals wrangling over contentious issues and occasionally slagging their critics.

The question of scientific misconduct is still under investigation at East Anglia. But what's clear is that the scandal – one of the biggest to hit the science community in the past decade – wouldn't still be hanging so heavily over climate-change researchers if it weren't for bloggers such as Stephen McIntyre.

A Toronto-based retired mining executive who has emerged as a uniquely polarizing figure in one of our era's most contentious issues, Mr. McIntyre has been an outspoken critic of the CRU's research on his blog, Climate Audit, and has launched countless freedom-of-information requests for data used by its scientists. He likes to speculate that the Climategate e-mails were released by a whistleblower unhappy at the research unit's intransigence over making data public. That may or may not be true, but whoever got hold of the e-mails and made them public clearly kept a close eye on Mr. McIntyre's struggles with the CRU, which form a strong theme in the leaked e-mails.

Many reveal researchers bristling at the armchair scientist's criticism. One e-mail, written by Benjamin Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, called Mr. McIntyre “the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of climate science.” Another referred to him as a “bozo.” But Mr. McIntyre doesn't mind the criticism: His website is now getting a million hits a month, double what it got before Climategate.

In the wake of the scandal, blogs that question the reality of man-made global warming have surged in public attention, leading new readers to websites such as Wattsupwiththat.com (run by weatherman Anthony Watts) and climatedepot.com (run by conservative activist Marc Morano). The sites' rising popularity, and the growing influence they appear to wield in shaping public debate, is deeply worrying to the scientific community.

“There has been a transition in the way people get their news over the last decade or so, from the traditional print media to online sources of news,” says Michael Mann, one of the key researchers behind the now-famous “hockey stick” graph (which shows the temperature of the Earth steeply rising in the 20th century after a long period of stability – data hotly disputed by the online skeptics, although accepted by the scientific community).

“I think the climate-change-denial movement has recognized that transition was taking place and has really invested a lot of effort and resources in creating this huge infrastructure of online disinformation. And I think it is a challenge for legitimate news organizations to compete with that massive disinformation network.”

Science journalist Chris Mooney, co-author of the 2009 book Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, calls the Internet a “complete Wild, Wild West for scientific information.”

Mr. Mooney thinks the belief in the reality of man-made global warming, which is the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community, is losing ground in public opinion because of these blogs. “It's a drumming,” he laments. “If it's a football game, it would be 56-0.”

AN EPIC GAME OF NITPICKING

The major climate-change-skeptic blogs have distinct identities. Mr. Morano's Climate Depot is a ramshackle aggregator site, gathering together news links from around the world, often putting a partisan spin on them. A former producer for the Rush Limbaugh television show and informal adviser to Republican Senator James Inhofe, Mr. Marino has strong ties to the American conservative movement.

Climate Depot's tabloid style was captured in a headline earlier this week: “The Jig is Up! Climategate U-turn as Phil Jones admits: There has been no global warming since 1995.” The spin applied to the story, about a media interview with the former director of the CRU, was picked up by news outlets and columnists around the world. But it distorted Prof. Jones's comments, which actually indicated that a short-term warming trend appears to exist at levels “quite close” to scientifically significant. And Prof. Jones stressed that statistically significant trends are much more likely to be detected over longer periods. “The fact that there is almost 95 per cent certainty about the rise from 1995 to 2009 means that it is likely,” he said.

In keeping with his background as a weatherman, Mr. Watts's website focuses on the nitty-gritty of measuring temperatures. As one of the signature issues of his blog, Mr. Watts has focused on meteorological stations, arguing that they were often misplaced – positioned in areas where temperatures were artificially high, such as asphalt parking lots. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration responded to this critique by calculating temperatures minus Mr. Watts's list of objectionable stations. Ironically, the new data showed a slight rise in temperatures.

As distinct from Mr. Morano's conservative populism and Mr. Watts's focus on the weather, Mr. McIntyre's Climate Audit is the most highbrow of the climate skeptic blogs. Even Mr. Mooney acknowledges that Mr. McInytre is “more scientifically inclined” than his peers. Climate Audit is regarded by many as the best of all the climate-skeptic blogs, the one richest in detailed technical arguments and most attentive to the rules of science and evidence.

To his many fans, Mr. McIntyre is a sterling example of a citizen-scientist, an amateur who was able to poke holes in a too-quickly constructed consensus. But to his critics, who include some of the most eminent names in climate science, he casts a very different image, as a gifted pest whose scattershot criticisms indiscriminately mix a few valid points with a larger body of half-truths, a potent concoction that produces much confusion but little benefit.

After working for years in the mining industry, Mr. McIntyre, 62, came to the climate-science debate in 2002 when he became suspicious of the political passions surrounding the Kyoto Protocol. He quickly teamed up with University of Guelph economist Ross McKitrick, who shared the businessman's doubts over the hockey stick graph, which became emblematic of the global-warming argument.

Their 2005 critique of the graph, published in Geophysical Research Letters, sparked a renewed examination of the hockey-stick data, but didn't make any fundamental change in the debate. Since its original publication, the graph research has been replicated by nearly a dozen studies. Although the hockey stick has been battered and bruised by many critics, it still works.

“What McIntyre has essentially done is put his finger on small technicalities that don't matter,” argues Prof. Mann, now based at Pennsylvania State University. “In every case, they've been dismissed. When the question arises, does it make a difference? The answer is always no. All that is important to him is to be able to say that he's found a problem and then allow everybody else to say this fundamentally undermines the science.”

The key objection to the work of bloggers such as Mr. McIntyre is that they are engaged in an epic game of nitpicking: zeroing in on minor technical issues while ignoring the massive and converging lines of evidence that are coming in from many disciplines. To read their online work is to enter a dank, claustrophobic universe where obsessive personalities talk endlessly about small building blocks – Yamal Peninsula trees, bristlecones, weather stations – the removal of which will somehow topple the entire edifice of climate science. Lost in the blogging world is any sense of proportion, or the idea that science is built on cumulative work in many fields, the scientists say.

Understandably, Mr. McIntyre doesn't agree with dismissals of his work, and the criticism he has received has made him increasingly critical of the peer-reviewed process that has vindicated the hockey-stick graph. “Peer-reviewed scientists have denied the point of [our] research,” he complains. Many of his recent attacks on climate change have focused on the argument that seemingly independent studies validated by peer review are actually the work of a small group of insiders who control the peer-review process and rubber-stamp each other's scholarship.

Online writing has other advantages over the peer-reviewed system, some bloggers believe. If blogging is a speedy new medium, peer review is a classic example of a slow and deliberative old medium.

“There are 10 peer-reviewed articles I could draw out of the Climate Audit posts,” Mr. McIntyre says, “but I've got this very large audience. I've got to keep feeding the blog.”

As much as climate change, the issue of peer review separates Mr. McIntyre from his critics. “There is a very fundamental distinction between the way science actually moves forward, which isn't on blogs,” Prof. Mann notes. “It's through the traditional process of doing the hard work necessary to get your work published in legitimate peer-reviewed scholarly journals and then it's out there for others to either improve upon, to refute, to address. That's the self-correcting process. Frankly, that process has been subverted by those who … make sometimes outlandish claims in the completely un-peer-reviewed environment of the Internet.”

Still, the scientists concede that the work of some of these online bloggers has led to some necessary corrections – including sloppy misrepresentations of data such as the recent “Glaciergate” brouhaha (over unreliable estimates of when Himalayan glaciers would eventually melt), which Mr. Mooney says the researchers “ought to be ashamed of.”

Gavin Schmidt, of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goddard Institute for Space Studies cites a mistake that Mr. McIntyre found in an analysis of global temperatures, which “we fixed in a day and thanked him for his attention. That got blown out of all proportion and was made to look like we did it on purpose ... something McIntyre did nothing to prevent. So you take something that is constructive and turn it into a huge piece of misinformation.”

One little-known irony of the debate is that for all the harsh words, many scientists have a grudging respect for Mr. McIntyre's intelligence. “He could be a scientific superstar,” Mr. Schmidt says. “He's a smart person. He could be adding to the sum total of human knowledge, but in effect he adds to the reduction of the sum total of human knowledge.”

As the world looks toward Mexico, where further climate change negotiations are scheduled in July, how much impact have the bloggers had on the political debate? Polling data on the issue is inconclusive and the full impact of Climategate has yet to be felt, but there are some telling signs. Last month, a poll from researchers at Yale and George Mason universities revealed that 50 per cent of Americans are “somewhat” or “very” worried about global warming, down from 63 per cent in 2008.

Sundancefisher

02-20-2010, 10:43 PM

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/the-doubters-do-disservice-to-climate-facts/article1472224/

Eric Reguly

Published on Thursday, Feb. 18, 2010 12:00AM EST Last updated on Saturday, Feb. 20, 2010 3:14AM EST

The science of climate change is inexact. It is about uncertainty and probabilities. Based on the evidence, a criminal lawyer would not be able to prove that humans are responsible for potentially catastrophic climate change. But the evidence would certainly nail down a civil conviction.

If the vast bulk of evidence says climate change is real and that humans are almost certainly to blame, why is the science being dismissed as exaggerated, unreliable or even fraudulent by the climate change doubters?

Opinion polls show that public skepticism about man-made climate change has climbed in recent months as the stories questioning the legitimacy of the science migrate from the Internet's fringes to the mainstream media.

The University of East Anglia affair certainly did a lot of damage. The university's Climatic Research Unit failed to keep proper records about Chinese weather stations and probably deleted potentially embarrassing correspondence to get around the Freedom of Information Act, among other sins. As far as scandals go, it's genuine.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change "scandal" is less convincing, though the skeptics' blogs would have you believe it's a con job that makes Bernie Madoff look like a saint. Marc Morano's Climate Depot calls the IPCC a "train wreck." The site hosts blogs with provocative headlines such as "Is Anything in the IPCC Report Accurate?"

The IPCC's 2007 report on climate change concluded that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and that most of the recent warming was "very likely due" to human activity. Left unchecked, the greenhouse gas emissions have the potential to raise average global temperatures by between 1.1 to 6.4 degrees by the end of the century, the report said.

Produced by 800 contributing authors and reviewed by some 2,500 scientists, the report tipped the balance in favour of the argument that humans are the main contributors to climate change.

It built momentum for December's Copenhagen climate change summit, which tried (and failed) to launch a global successor to the relatively narrow Kyoto Protocol. (The IPCC shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.)

What got the skeptics all hot was the IPCC claim that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035, even though the figure did not appear in any of the "Technical Summaries" or "Summaries for Policy Makers," only on one page of the 3,000-page report. In truth, there is almost no evidence to suggest the glaciers will melt that quickly.

Another claim said global warming could reduce rain-fed North African crop production by 50 per cent by 2020. This scenario, too, is dubious. The Dutch government has asked the IPCC to correct the claim that more than half of the Netherlands is below sea level; the official Dutch figure is 26 per cent.

Mistakes in a 3,000-page report were inevitable, especially given that the IPCC does not conduct its own research; it collects and reviews research done by climate scientists everywhere. More mistakes will surface, if only because the climate change skeptics, backed by well-financed armies of lobbyists employed by companies that cringe at the thought of tight emission reduction targets, are straining every word through their truth filters.

They have been doing so for three years and the biggest mistake they could find is the Himalayan claim. None of the IPCC's central conclusions have been demolished. We know that greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, that global average temperatures are increasing, and that natural phenomena can explain only part of the warming. Glaciers are indeed melting, including those in the Himalayas.

In regions where little climate data have been collected, the climate change evidence may not be compelling. Change can only be measured against a base. If the base isn't known, any climate change claims are open to challenge. But in areas where a lot of data have been collected, there is no argument that climate change is real. The thoroughly studied ice packs in the Arctic and Greenland are disappearing faster than most scientists had expected.

The IPCC has struggled to defend itself. That's in good part because it has no resources. It is not an institution or a company or a movement. It is a small secretariat with an annual budget of about $5-million (U.S.), insignificant compared with the financial firepower of the climate change skeptics. IPCC chairman Rajenda Pachauri's delayed apology for the Himalayan mistake made a bad situation worse.

Sadly, the British government is one of the few to have come out in defence of the IPCC's report, even though scientists from many dozens of countries contributed to the study.

"It's right that there's rigour applied to all the reports about climate change," British Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Ed Miliband told the Observer newspaper last month. "But I think it would be wrong that, when a mistake is made, it's somehow used to undermine the overwhelming picture that's there."

Hear, hear Mr. Miliband. Governments ignore the IPCC at their peril. The preponderance of evidence, to use a civil lawyer's term, suggests climate change is real and dangerous.

Sundancefisher

02-20-2010, 10:51 PM

http://www.probeinternational.org/files/UKVersieHenkTennekes.pdf

very good read.

Sundancefisher

02-20-2010, 10:56 PM

Does this make you feel better?

One guy works closely with the IPCC.

*************************************
Top Scientists Affirm Consensus on Global Warming
SAN DIEGO, California, February 20, 2010 (ENS) - A panel of eminent U.S. and European scientists has confirmed the widespread scientific consensus that the Earth's climate is warming due to human activities, but said they and their colleagues should have responded more quickly and effectively to news of an error in a major climate report and hacked researcher e-mails.

In a symposium Friday at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement Science, AAAS, the scientific leaders acknowledged errors in a 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and possibly impolitic email exchanges by East Anglian University climate researchers.

But they expressed shock at the political effects of the disclosures and said the impact was far out of proportion to the overwhelming evidence that human activity is changing the Earth's climate.
Jerry North (Photos by Edward Lempenin courtesy AAAS)

"There has been no change in the scientific community, no change whatsoever," in the consensus that global average temperatures have been steadily climbing since the mid-20th century," said Jerry North, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University.

The panel also included: Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academies of Science and chair of the National Research Council; Lord Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society in the U.K.; James J. McCarthy, chairman of the AAAS Board; Alexander Agassiz, professor of Biological Oceanography at Harvard University; and Philip Sharp; a Nobel laureate and professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Some climate science critics and media reports have suggested that the e-mails, stolen from an East Anglican University server and released last November, show evidence of tinkering with climate change data. But many scientists say comments from the emails were taken out of context and used in misleading ways.

An independent investigation is ongoing. The Royal Society will provide advice to the University of East Anglia in identifying assessors to conduct an independent external reappraisal of the Climatic Research Unit's key publications.
Lord Martin Rees

Rees said on February 12, "It is important that people have the utmost confidence in the science of climate change. Where legitimate doubts are raised about any piece of science they must be fully investigated - that is how science works. The names being put forward by the society will be acting as individuals, not representatives of the Society and the Society will have no oversight of this independent review."

In January, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations organization that has involved thousands of scientists from around the world in producing four major reports since the 1990s, acknowledged that it had included unsubstantiated data on Himalayan glacier melting in a 2007 report.

Cicerone said "the appearance, if not the reality," of a rift within the research community has "corroded" the climate debate in a way that "may spread over to other kinds of science."
James J. McCarthy

Scientists need to redouble their efforts to share the implications of climate change with the public, he said, by breaking down the numbers and showing how the often-cited global average temperature rise of three degrees Centigrade could actually send temperatures over the land soaring nearly to nearly nine degrees in the next few decades.

"A lot of what we need to do," said Cicerone, "is translate basic information into terms the public can understand.

Several of the scientists acknowledged that some of the details of climate change remain uncertain. But "we think despite all the uncertainties ... action is justified and indeed imperative" to avoid the worst effects of climate change, said Rees.

The IPCC conclusions are subject to rigorous peer review. Indeed, said Rees, some IPCC researchers did catch the erroneous statement that accelerated melting could lead to the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers by 2035. Still, the error slipped through.

McCarthy, who formerly served as co-chair of an IPCC working group, predicted that the organization would certainly redouble its efforts to catch mistakes in the future.
Sunset in Germany, July 29, 2009 (Photo by Juergen Kuprat)

He said the IPCC's prestigious reputation as a Nobel Peace Prize winning organization was a factor in many news reports. "The greater the stature of the institution," he said, "the harder the fall."

Some scientists were also not prepared to discuss the data in ways that were useful to the press and public, said North. While the diversity of data - from pollen samples to satellite data to computer modeling - is a key strength of climate change conclusions, the "culture" of each discipline is equally varied, he said.

"Some of these [groups] are not really well organized to handle relations with the press," North said.

Climate change is "diffuse and international and remote in time," two special hurdles that make it "very hard to get the public exercised on the matter," said Rees.

Wider access and transparency for research data is a step toward better communication, Cicerone said. The National Academies released a report last year on building specific standards for sharing research more broadly with scientific colleagues and the public.

The controversy will probably play only a small role whether the U.S. Congress will pass a climate change law this year, said McCarthy and Cicerone, who said Americans remain more concerned about a sluggish economy than about climate change.

So far, McCarthy said, scientists have not done "a sufficiently good job" of persuading the American people and their congressional representatives of the potential economic and health benefits of a comprehensive climate change law.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2010/2010-02-20-01.html

TreeGuy

02-20-2010, 11:10 PM

Once again, thank you, Sun.

Crap/garbage/vested interest science has not only been limited to climate. We in Alberta have been subjected to it in regards to the grizzly bear hunt. The science and speculation has been just as much hijacked by special interests, and the rubes who'll buy into their rhetoric.:mad:

Keep up the good work!:)

Still waiting for a proponent response. Mr. Meredith, any thoughts?

Sundancefisher

02-21-2010, 09:37 PM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704757904575077741687226602.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_BelowLEFTSecond

Climate Change and Open Science
In the Internet age, transparency is the foundation of trust.

By L. GORDON CROVITZ

'Unequivocal." That's quite a claim in this skeptical era, so it's been enlightening to watch the unraveling of the absolute certainty of global warming caused by man. Now even authors of the 2007 United Nations report that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal" have backed off its key assumptions and dire warnings.

Science is having its Walter Cronkite moment. Back when news was delivered by just three television networks, Walter Cronkite could end his evening broadcast by declaring, "And that's the way it is." The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report likewise purported to proclaim the final word, in 3,000 pages that now turn out to be less scientific truth than political cover for sweeping economic regulations.

Equivocation has replaced "unequivocal" even among some of the scientists whose "Climategate" emails discussed how to suppress dissenting views via peer review and avoid complying with freedom-of-information requests for data.

Phil Jones, the University of East Anglia scientist at the center of the emails, last week acknowledged to the BBC that there hasn't been statistically significant warming since 1995. He said there was more warming in the medieval period, before today's allegedly man-made effects. He also said "the vast majority of climate scientists" do not believe the debate over climate change is settled. Mr. Jones continues to believe in global warming but acknowledges there's no consensus.

Some journalistic digging into the 2007 U.N. climate change report revealed that its most quoted predictions were based on dubious sources. The IPCC now admits that its prediction that the Himalayan glaciers might disappear by 2035 was a mistake, based on an inaccurate citation to the World Wildlife Foundation. This advocacy group was also the basis for a claim the IPCC has backed away from—that up to 40% of the Amazon is endangered.

The IPCC report mistakenly doubled the percentage of the Netherlands currently below sea level. John Christy, a former lead author of the IPCC report, now says the "temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change." As the case collapsed, the top U.N. climate-change bureaucrat, Yvo de Boer, announced his resignation last week.

The climate topic is important in itself, but it is also a leading indicator of how our expectation of full access to information makes us deeply skeptical when we're instead given faulty or partial information. In just three years since the report was issued, we have gone from purported unanimity among scientists to a breakdown in any consensus. Opinion polls reflect this U-turn, with growing public skepticism.

Skeptics don't doubt science—they doubt unscientific claims cloaked in the authority of science. The scientific method is a foundation of our information age, with its approach of a clearly stated hypothesis tested through a transparent process with open data, subject to review.

The IPCC report was instead crafted by scientists hand-picked by governments when leading politicians were committed to global warming. Unsurprisingly, the report claimed enough certainty to justify massive new spending and regulations.

Some in the scientific community are now trying to restore integrity to climate science. "The truth, and this is frustrating for policymakers, is that scientists' ignorance of the climate system is enormous," Mr. Christy wrote in the current issue of Nature. "There is still much messy, contentious, snail-paced and now, hopefully, transparent, work to do."

Mr. Christy also makes the good point that groupthink—technically known as "informational cascades"—is a particular risk for scientists. He proposes a Wikipedia-like approach in which scientists could openly contribute and debate theories and data in real time.

The unraveling of the case for global warming has left laymen uncertain about what to believe and whom to trust. Experts usually know more than amateurs, but increasingly they get the benefit of the doubt only if they operate openly, without political or other biases.

We need scientists who apply scientific objectivity, or the closest approximation of it, and then present their information with enough transparency that people can weigh the evidence. Instead of a group of scientists anointed by the U.N. telling us what to think, the spirit of the age is that scientists need to provide open access to information on which others can make policy decisions.

The lesson of the chill of the global-warming consensus is this: Those who want to persuade others of the truth as they see it need to make their case as transparently as possible. Technology enables access to information and leads us to expect open debates, conducted honestly and in full view. This is inconvenient for those who want to claim unequivocal truth without having the evidence. But that's the way it is.

Sundancefisher

02-24-2010, 09:01 AM

The empire has begun to strike back

by Lorne Gunter, Canwest

It was only a matter of time before the climate alarmists got their feet back under them. There is too much at stake politically, too many careers and reputations on the line, too much grant money for researchers and donations for environmental groups, too much green-tax revenue for governments, too much prestige in academic circles at risk for those who have asserted for more than a decade that man is causing damaging climate change to slink away in defeat.

So it is of little surprise that in the past couple of weeks many alarmists have begun asserting that despite all the revelations of the past three months about how key climate scientists and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have corrupted the scientific process in an obsessive drive to prove that climate change is real, nothing has undermined the "fact" that the Earth is warming dangerously.

Since late November, the True Believers have watched in stunned silence as the foundation of the climate-change theory has suffered one body blow after another.

First it was the revelation that scientists at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in England -- perhaps the most influential of the three sources the United Nations relies on for most of its climate data -- were fudging their data to show more warming in recent decades than had actually occurred.

At the same time, these scientists were doing their best to upend the peer-review process at major scientific journals so scientists who disagreed with them would be unable to get published. And they were withholding their raw data and computer codes from other scientists and government investigators so no one else could validate or debunk their research by attempting to replicate it.

The alarmists have recently begun to rally around Phil Jones, the discredited head of the CRU. Nearly two week ago, Jones gave an interview to the BBC in which he admitted there had been no "statistically significant" global warming in the past 15 years.

Some news sources and global-warming skeptics overplayed Jones's exact words. Last Sunday's Daily Mail in Britain, for instance, claimed Jones had performed a "U-turn" in his claims for warming.

Jones, in fact, continues to insist the Earth is warming. But what he now admits is that it is not warming that rapidly (just 0.12 C per decade) and not "at the 95-per-cent significance level," the level needed to assert statistical certainty.

He also now allows that there may have been other periods in the past 1,000 years that were as warm as or warmer than today.

While this is not a complete about-face, it is hardly business-as-usual, as the alarmist would have us believe. Even if Jones is still insisting that global warming is happening, there is now a measure of doubt in his claims that never existed before. What makes Jones's words significant is not that they reveal some 180-degree change in his thinking, but that for the first time he admits significant uncertainty in the so-called settled science of climate change.

If leading climate scientists had spent the past 15 years saying the warming they were seeing wasn't all that significant or that there remained many uncertainties about predictions of future climate or that some pre-industrial periods had been warmer, would there have been a Kyoto accord or a Copenhagen Earth summit? Would Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth have made $100 million? Would environmentalists have been asked to write government policy? Would there be any support at all for green taxes and carbon capture and other measures aimed at curbing carbon dioxide emissions?

Likely not.

Even though alarmists are correct that Jones has not recanted his earlier belief in the warming theory, he has undergone a significant change.

Or take the assertion, recently very common among alarmists, that NASA's climate scientists are still finding global warming occurring, so it must still be happening.

Frankly, NASA's climate scientists have hardly more credibility than the CRUs or IPCCs.

NASA is another of the three repositories of climate data relied upon by the UN, but three years ago a significant error was found in its records. In the 1990s, NASA had begun keeping temperature records differently, but it had failed to adjust all its pre-1990s records (about 120 years' worth) to match the new method. When it reconciled its old records to its new method, recent warm years ceased to be as remarkable. For instance, 1934 replaced 1998 as the warmest year. And 1921 became the third-warmest.

In 2008, NASA substituted September's global temperatures for October's (they claimed accidentally), thereby distorting upward the worldwide averages for the fall of that year -- an otherwise rather cool year.

And most recently, NASA has been shown to be cherry-picking the Earth stations it uses to calculate global average. It has been eliminating stations in colder locations (polar, rural, mountainous) and over-relying on warmer ones (mid-latitudes, urban).

Alarmists may want to believe this changes nothing, but that simply makes them the new deniers.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/opinion/letters/empire+begun+strike+back/2603494/story.html

Sundancefisher

02-24-2010, 09:05 AM

http://news.discovery.com/earth/antarctica-peninsula-ice-melt-warming.html

This was a study just done...

************************************************** *******

My response is based upon this article. There was just a study done that showed the majority of Antarctica was growing ice for quite a while outside of these shoreline losses. Apparently two things are going on. One...the ocean currents are changing. If you have noticed el Nino et al. have been changing your climate in BC now and again for ever and ever. Apparently they don't understand the surface temperatures and deep ocean temperature cycles down there very well. In fact the latest data on ocean temperatures is indicating an over all drop...just like Earth's air temperatures have seen. Still...move a warmer current towards ice and well...you get melting. That being said an excellent study done a few years back showed that some Antarctic glaciers were moving quickly and calving quickly. They assumed global warming so they installed satellite sensors to measure movement and temperature. They recorded no temperature drops so they had to conclude that ground temperature was causing it. As it is under significant ice the conclusion has to be volcanic warming.

I would love to see you pull some more stuff up. The pro side has been seriously impeded as of late in their march to spend...spend...spend.

"The cause of the trend is not mysterious, says Antarctic ice researcher Eric Rignot of the University of California at Irvine.
"It's something that's very consistent with with the changing air temperatures," said Rignot." I do question poor comments from a scientist however. To mislead the public once again is very annoying. You see the IPCC and every other scientist now admits we have cooled slightly in the past 11 years and no statistical warming in 15. Therefore to let that statement out for people like you and I to assume warming is occuring and causing melting ice is wrong. Again...take the science into account. No warming. Oceans cooling. Ice melting. What could cause it? Seasonal or ocean current oscillation cycles yet to be studied.

Other wise nice study. One small part in Antarctica is melting. They don't really know why. Based upon other areas based on other studies shows the opposite. Arctic ice recovered again this year. Not sure it says anything other than they got some nice grant money and can buy presents and a turkey this Christmas.

Also please note that these floating ice sheets don't really add anything to water levels in the oceans. That was also refuted as Gore had stated. Floating ice is already under water and will shrink in volume as it melts (ice expands remember). Also it is water logged. Also Arctic ice has been studied extensively and shown to undergo cycles. There have been many times in the past when the Northwest passage was open. I strongly suspect the Antarctic ice is the same. Fluid and ever changing.

Regards

Sun

Sundancefisher

02-24-2010, 09:50 AM

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Arctic ice monitoring. It is interesting that they say the ice is not growing as fast as expected with the cold temperatures. That seems to indicate an ocean current influence.

"February 3, 2010
Despite cool temperatures, ice extent remains low
Despite cool temperatures over most of the Arctic Ocean in January, Arctic sea ice extent continued to track below normal."

Fact is studies have proven beyond a doubt that ice has come and gone in the Arctic many times over and over again in the past. Is that happening now? We can't be sure. They can track ice trends but to pin point why...hard to say. The IPCC and even Jones now freely admits that we have been in a slightly cooling phase on Earth for 11 years and no statistical warming in 15 years.

I just wish we had a crystal ball to see where this is going.

Cheers

Sun

Sundancefisher

02-25-2010, 11:33 AM

Sealevelrisegate...

David Adam
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 21 February 2010 18.00 GMT

Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels.

Study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report's author now says true estimate is still unknown.

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study "strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results". The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.

Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.

Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.

Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study's conclusion.

"Retraction is a regular part of the publication process," he said. "Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances."

Nature Publishing Group, which publishes Nature Geoscience, said this was the first paper retracted from the journal since it was launched in 2007.

The paper – entitled "Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change" – used fossil coral data and temperature records derived from ice-core measurements to reconstruct how sea level has fluctuated with temperature since the peak of the last ice age, and to project how it would rise with warming over the next few decades.

In a statement the authors of the paper said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.

"One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes."

In the Nature Geoscience retraction, in which Siddall and his colleagues explain their errors, Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for "bringing these issues to our attention".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall

Sundancefisher

02-25-2010, 12:01 PM

Where is the common sense. It is not the energy industry that needs to change but rather the consumers. WE NEED TO ATTACK THE CONSUMERS...should be the headlines.

We need Pamela Anderson out paint bombing Lexuses, SUV's and Minivans instead of furs. We need to be sitting outside shopping centers shouting insults at moms with toddlers buying disposable diapers or non local produce or even more important screaming at her for getting pregnant and adding another carbon based lifeform carbon using methane expelling baby to the planet. We need to be sitting outside the mega toy stores protesting selling anything plastic. We need to protest at the local furniture store protesting building furniture out of carbon using trees.

This total fixation with oil and gas companies, coal companies, tropical hydroelectric companies etc. has got to stop. People that are fanatics unite! Stand up against your neighbours using gas lawn mowers, cutting grass to short, using too much water, painting homes, running air conditioners. All air conditioners in vehicles should be outlawed in Vancouver and elsewhere.

Then don't get me started about all the fuel it takes to catch and transport bait, fishing tackle, boats, cars, fishing tackle manufacturing etc. Next time you see someone NOT using a bamboo rod...shout at them and demand they throw it away as a protest against global warming.

At the very least people. How about more models doing nude protests. That stops traffic! and pollution so long as they don't idle.

Sun

************************************************** ***********************************
Is the climate change movement splintering?

Posted by
Bibi van der Zee Thursday 25 February 2010 12.31 GMT
guardian.co.uk

Climate change activists are regrouping post-Copenhagen – and some are reasserting their radical roots

Activists reflected in a police riot shield at the Climate Camp near Kingsnorth power station in Kent, August 4, 2008. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA

The climate change movement is dead, long live the climate change movement! was the proclamation made last week by Rising Tide North America, as green campaigners around the world begin coming to terms with the switchback ride of the last three months.

"A particular model of dealing with climate change is dying. It is revealing itself before the world as nothing more than a final scramble for the remaining resources of a planet in peril," states a quote from Naomi Klein at the beginning of the document, before stating:

Many in the climate movement have grown all too cosy with the status quo. The 'bold' action they call for will result in the privatisation of the air, to be divided up by mega-polluters. Their demands for carbon neutrality seek to offset our problems onto poor countries while the rich keep burning and consuming. Those who still cling to the old climate movement have committed themselves to a sinking ship.

It comes out against a backdrop of restlessness, as activists take stock of where they have been and where they are going. Now that the climate talks in Copenhagen have failed, the activists who campaigned inside and outside the Bella Centre are subsiding naturally into two groups – those who didn't want a deal in the first place, and those who did.

People in the latter group, which includes campaign groups such as UK Youth Climate Coalition and the umbrella group tck tck tck, are devastated. As Gemma Bone, one of UKYCC's members puts it; "I didn't expect that there would be a final agreement, but I did think that we would make some kind of progress, and that this year would be all about finalising details. Now it's not clear how the UN process will even go forward. It's absolutely knocked me for six."

But activists in the former group – including Climate Camp, Rising Tide and Climate Justice Network – are more positive. A spokesman for Rising Tide said: "To be honest we never expected a deal at Copenhagen. We don't want an international agreement." Like many activists he is profoundly sceptical about the ability of a carbon trading market – one of the central mechanism of any international agreement – to deliver real reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide.

In fact Copenhagen and the failure of the meeting has in some ways liberated activists. Climate Campers, for example, have been discussing being more upfront about their anarchist and anti-capitalist roots. In the Climate Camp reader which was circulated in January, writers suggested that the camp had been "hijacked by a hardcore of liberals" and asked if it might be time to be more open about the anarchist, anti-capitalist core to the camp.

In many cases the focus is shifting from global action to local issues, such as fossil-fuel power plants or mines. Rising Tide North America's document calls for "an asymmetrical assault on the fossil fuel industry" while in the UK and in Europe campaigners are also planning to focus more on local grassroots campaigns, "to start from the bottom" as the Rising Tide spokesman put it.

The global network that was formed in Copenhagen, as activist groups from around the world worked together to organise the giant march and the Step Up the Resistance demonstration outside the Bella Centre, will also be in correspondence. Nicola Bullard of Focus on the Global South and Climate Justice Network, will be attending the People's World Conference on Climate Change in Bolivia this Easter, along with representatives from Climate Camp, Via Campesina and Jubilee South.

But there is no plan to return to the old summit-hopping ways of the anti-capitalist movement, following the G20 and the WTO from conference to conference. "We need to carry on building on the simple principles that we've established, which held us together in Copenhagen," says Bullard. She agrees that the main focus now has to be getting on with what is already happening. "Sometimes the issue is just too big, too contingent on everything else going on around you. Sometimes, to be honest, you just have to start to do the work."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/feb/25/climate-change-movement

Sundancefisher

02-25-2010, 12:09 PM

University of East Anglia rejects lost climate data claims

Submission ahead of next week's parliamentary inquiry 'strongly rejects' accusations university lost or manipulated climate data.

Press Association
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 25 February 2010 11.53 GMT

The university at the centre of the row over emails sent by climate scientists today rejected accusations that it had lost or manipulated scientific research.

The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has been under fire since hacked emails, which sceptics claimed showed scientists manipulating climate data, were leaked online last year.

In a submission to parliament's science and technology committee, which is investigating the disclosure of climate data from the unit, the university said it "strongly rejected" accusations that it had manipulated or selected figures to exaggerate global warming.

The university also denied suggestions that it had breached Freedom of Information rules by refusing to release raw data.

And it insisted the CRU had not lost any primary data gathered from monitoring stations around the world.

According to the submission, allegations that scientists hid flaws and research findings were the result of misunderstandings of technical jargon or statistical analysis.

And it said the often-cited email which refers to a "trick" to "hide the decline" in a discussion of temperature measurements had been "richly misinterpreted and quoted out of context".

The submission sets out science-based responses to a number of allegations that researchers attempted to mislead, misrepresent or did not effectively manage the data held at the CRU.

And it said leaked emails expressing doubts about the scientific rigour of research papers by climate sceptics "appear to have been justified" in their concerns.

The University of East Anglia has launched two independent investigations into the controversy. Onewill look at the key allegations prompted by the leaking of the emails and a second review of the climate science produced by the unit.

UEA's vice-chancellor, Professor Edward Acton, said the university was looking forward to the results of the two reviews.

In the submission, he said: "Given that the stakes for humanity are so high in correctly interpreting the evidence of global warming, we would meanwhile urge scientists, academics, journalists and public servants to resist the distortions of hearsay evidence or orchestrated campaigns of misinformation, and instead to encourage open, intelligent debate."

A number of witnesses, including the head of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, will appear before the committee on Monday.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/25/uea-rejects-lost-data-claims

Sundancefisher

02-25-2010, 04:00 PM

Scientists examine causes for lull in warming
25 Feb 2010, 2204 hrs IST, REUTERS

LONDON/OSLO: Climate scientists must do more to work out how exceptionally cold winters or a dip in world temperatures fit their theories of global warming, if they are to persuade an increasingly sceptical public.

At stake is public belief that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet, and political momentum to act as governments struggle to agree a climate treaty which could direct trillions of dollars into renewable energy, away from fossil fuels.

Public conviction of global warming's risks may have been undermined by an error in a UN panel report exaggerating the pace of melt of Himalayan glaciers and by the disclosure of hacked emails revealing scientists sniping at sceptics, who leapt on these as evidence of data fixing.

Scientists said they must explain better how a freezing winter this year in parts of the northern hemisphere and a break in a rising trend in global temperatures since 1998 can happen when heat-trapping gases are pouring into the atmosphere.

"There is a lack of consensus," said Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, on why global temperatures have not matched a peak set in 1998, or in 2005 according to one US analysis. For a table of world temperatures:

Part of the explanation could be a failure to account for rapid warming in parts of the Arctic, where sea ice had melted, and where there were fewer monitoring stations, he said.

"I think we need better analysis of what's going on on a routine basis so that everyone, politicians and the general public, are informed about our current understanding of what is happening, more statements in a much quicker fashion instead of waiting for another six years for the next IPCC report."

The latest, fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report was published in 2007 and the next is due in 2014.

The proportion of British adults who had no doubt climate change was happening had dropped in January to 31 percent from 44 percent in January 2009, an Ipsos MORI poll showed this week.

HOTTEST DECADE ON RECORD

The decade 2000-2009 was the hottest since 1850 as a result of warming through the 1980s and 1990s which has since peaked, says the World Meteorological Organisation.

British Hadley Centre scientists said last year that there was no warming from 1999-2008, after allowing for extreme, natural weather patterns. Temperatures should have risen by a widely estimated 0.2 degrees Centigrade, given a build up of manmade greenhouse gases.

"Solar might be one part of it," said the Hadley's Jeff Knight, adding that changes in the way data was gathered could be a factor, as well as shifts in the heat stored by oceans.

The sun goes through phases in activity, and since 2001 has been in a downturn meaning it may have heated the earth a little less, scientists say.

"We've not put our finger precisely on what has changed," Knight said. "(But) If you add all these things together ... there's nothing really there to challenge the idea that there's going to be large warming in the 21st century."

Melting Arctic ice was evidence for continuing change, regardless of observed temperatures, said Stein Sandven, head of the Nansen Environmental
and Remote Sensing Center in Norway.

"The long-term change for the Arctic sea ice has been very consistent. It shows a decline over these (past) three decades especially in the summer. In the past 3-4 years Arctic sea ice has been below the average for the last 30 years."

Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC, told Reuters that the IPCC stood by its 2007 findings that it is more than 90 percent certain that human activities are the main cause of global warming in the past 50 years.

"I think the findings are overall very robust. We've made one stupid error on the Himalayan glaciers. I think that there is otherwise so much solid science." The IPCC wrongly predicted that Himalayan glaciers could vanish by 2035.

NATURAL CAUSES?

One long-running doubter of the threat of climate change, Richard Lindzen, meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said a lull in warming was unsurprising, given an earlier "obsessing about tenths of a degree" in the 1980s and early 1990s.

The world warmed 0.7-0.8 degrees Celsius over the last century. Lindzen expected analysis to show in a few years' time that recent warming had natural causes. "It just fluctuates. I think the best explanation is the ocean. The timescale for ocean circulations can be decades."

He dismissed recent ice melt over a short, 30-year record.

Pachauri said that scientists had to unpick manmade global warming from natural influences -- such as the sun and cyclical weather patterns -- also dubbed "natural variability".

"Natural variability is not magic, there is movement of energy around the climate system and we should be able to track it," said Trenberth.

Trenberth attributed the cold winter to an extraordinary weather pattern not seen since 1977 which had curbed prevailing westerly winds across the northern hemisphere, and said that the underlying cause was "one we don't have answers to."

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ET-Cetera/Scientists-examine-causes-for-lull-in-warming/articleshow/5616841.cms

Sundancefisher

02-25-2010, 04:04 PM

Is is really a scientific re-examination if the person in charge is going into this saying nothing will change?

Sad...

*******************************
Met Office to look again at global warming records
The Met Office is to re-examine 160 years of global temperature records following the 'climategate' scandal.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Published: 7:00AM GMT 25 Feb 2010

The project, in partnership with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), will gather the original temperature records from thousands of weather stations around the world. The readings will be double-checked and new information that has become available, such as improved understanding of atmospheric change, will be added. The data will then be independently analysed to assess how the temperature has changed over different regions.

The new analysis, that will take three years, will not only provide a more detailed picture of global warming but boost public confidence in the science of climate change.

Climate change sceptics claim that emails stolen from the University of East Anglia show scientists were willing to manipulate global warming data in a scandal known as 'climategate'.

In another scandal known as 'glaciergate' the UN body in charge of climate change science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was forced to retract a claim that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035.

However leading scientists, including the Royal Society, insist the case for man-made global warming is convincing and it remains a threat to the world.

Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice, at the Met Office, said the new global temperature analyses would not change the trend of global warming.

But she said it would verify the existing data and provide more information so the world can better adapt to climate change.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7309688/Met-Office-to-look-again-at-global-warming-records.html

Sundancefisher

02-26-2010, 09:37 AM

David Adam
guardian.co.uk, Friday 26 February 2010 12.21 GMT

UN to commission independent scientific inquiry into IPCC

UN climate body to appoint scientists to review climate change panel as UK climate change secretary writes to Rajendra Pachauri to express concern over 'damaging mistakes'

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in January that earlier predictions of glacial melting through climate change were wrong. Photograph: Manan Vatsyayana/AFP/Getty Images

The UN is to commission an independent group of top scientists to review its climate change panel, which has been under fire since it admitted a mistake over melting Himalayan glaciers.

The experts will look at the way the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) operates and will recommend where they think changes are needed. The panel will be part of a broader review of the IPCC, full details of which will be announced by the UN next week.

Nick Nuttall, of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) told Reuters: "It will be [made up of] senior scientific figures. I can't name who they are right now. It should do a review of the IPCC, produce a report by, say, August and there is a plenary of the IPCC in South Korea in October. The report will go there for adoption."

He added: "There's no review panel at the moment. Yesterday, it was clear from the member states roughly how they would like this panel to be – fully independent and not appointed by the IPCC, but appointed by an independent group of scientists themselves."

The terms of references for the panel would be announced next week, he said. "I think we are bringing some level of closure to this issue."

The IPCC reviews climate change science on behalf of the world's governments. Its most recent report, in 2007, concluded that there was a 90% certainty that human activities are causing global warming.

Nuttall said the broader review of the IPCC would examine its use of reports from outside conventional academic journals, so-called 'grey literature'. A report from campaign group WWF is blamed for introducing the false statement that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 into the IPCC's 2007 report.

Achim Steiner, executive director of UNEP, said he did not support a ban on the use of grey literature and that the media had exaggerated the IPCC's mistakes.

In a separate move, Ed Miliband, climate secretary, has written to the head of the IPCC to express UK concern over the mistake.

In a letter to IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri, Miliband says: "Mistakes such as the IPCC statements on Himalayan glaciers are inevitably damaging. This is a matter of concern because the reliability and good name of the IPCC is vital to ensuring all countries recognise the dangers of climate change."

Miliband said the IPCC needed to thoroughly review its procedures and the way it responded to media criticism. It should also find a way to correct errors and to minimise future problems, particularly with reports drawn from grey literature.

"Clearly this is only the outline of a strategy," the letter says. "There is a great deal of work to do in turning it into a detailed plan for change. The British government is happy to assist you in that process."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/26/ipcc-independent-scientific-review

Sundancefisher

02-26-2010, 09:43 AM

Seemingly...many mistakes were made in analysing the raw data of which has been admitted. This only occurred because of the climateagate controversy.

Openness is so key to science.

So now we add

Datagate and Sealevelgate to climategate, glaciergate, africagate and so on. NO kidding there has to be openness to prevent more damaging errors to scientific integrity!

************************************************** ***********************************

From Times Online February 24, 2010

Analysis: reaping what was sown
Hannah Devlin

The Met Office’s decision to overhaul their climate data is not an admission of doubt over the bigger picture on climate change. Independent data from NASA clearly confirm that the global-average temperature has increased over the past century and this warming has been particularly rapid since the 1970s.

The basic laws of physics also dictate that increasing greenhouse gases is likely to cause global warming and that the more we emit, the stronger the effect will be.

But the overhaul is an acknowledgement that public confidence in climate science is at an all-time low and that scientists are at least in part to blame.

The 'climategate' email row and mistakes by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — in particular a claim that Himalayan glaciers were melting so fast that they would vanish by 2035 — have left the impression of a community in which misconduct is rife and transparency is undervalued.

The consensus over global warming, which is as strong as ever among scientists, now appears unstable in the eyes of the public.

The Met Office could have taken a more superficial, cosmetic approach to dealing with the issue — encouraging its scientists to engage more enthusiastically with the media, museums and schools, for instance.

What they are undertaking — a thorough re-evaluation of their data — goes much further revealing the depth of their concern over the current confidence crisis. Their ambition is to develop a dataset and analysis that is virtually watertight against damaging criticisms by sceptics.

Undertaking such an exercise is unlikely to prove an easy ride. Reacting quickly to the climategate row in December, the Met Office made land-based temperature records publicly available on its website for the first time. Soon afterwards, it had to make corrections to the temperature record after science bloggers uncovered a raft of flaws. These mistakes are unlikely to be the only ones.
It is right that the science underpinning trillion-pound decisions is subject to this degree of scrutiny. And a pristine record, in which every possibly error is ironed out, will be of significant value to the climate science community as well as of PR value to the Met Office.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/earth-environment/article7039324.ece

Sundancefisher

02-26-2010, 11:15 AM

FEBRUARY 26, 2010
Push to Oversimplify at Climate Panel

By JEFFREY BALL And KEITH JOHNSON

Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

The group expressed 'regret' last month for an erroneous projection in its influential 2007 climate report that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

In the next few days, the world's leading authority on global warming plans to roll out a strategy to tackle a tough problem: restoring its own bruised reputation.

A months-long crisis at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has upended the world's perception of global warming, after hacked emails and other disclosures revealed deep divisions among scientists working with the United Nation-sponsored group. That has raised questions about the panel's objectivity in assessing one of today's most hotly debated scientific fields.

The problem stems from the IPCC's thorny mission: Take sophisticated and sometimes inconclusive science, and boil it down to usable advice for lawmakers. To meet that goal, scientists working with the IPCC say they sometimes faced institutional bias toward oversimplification, a Wall Street Journal examination shows.

Richard Alley, a geoscientist who helped write the IPCC's latest report, issued in 2007, described a trip that summer to Greenland's ice sheet with senators who urged him to be as specific as possible about the potential for sea-level rise. The point many of them made, he said: Give more explicit advice—because, if the sea rises, "the levee has to be built some height."

The tension within the IPCC stretches back a decade or more, according to interviews with scientists and a review of hundreds of IPCC documents and emails. It has complicated the panel's work on matters ranging from the study of tree rings to the proper use of massively complex climate computer models.

The IPCC has faced withering criticism. Emails hacked from a U.K. climate lab and posted online late last year appear to show scientists trying to squelch researchers who disagreed with their conclusion that humans are largely responsible for climate change. And last month, the IPCC admitted its celebrated 2007 report contained an error: a false claim that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035. The IPCC report got the date from a World Wildlife Fund report.

Even some who agree with the IPCC conclusion that humans are significantly contributing to climate change say the IPCC has morphed from a scientific analyst to a political actor. "It's very much an advocacy organization that's couched in the role of advice," says Roger Pielke, a University of Colorado political scientist. He says many IPCC participants want "to compel action" instead of "just summarizing science."

To restore its credibility, the IPCC will focus on enforcing rules already on the books, IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri and other officials said in interviews. Scientific claims must be checked with several experts before being published. IPCC reports must reflect disagreements when consensus can't be reached. And people who write reports must refrain from advocating specific environmental actions—a political line the IPCC isn't supposed to cross.

Mr. Pachauri describes the IPCC's record as "impeccable." Still, he said, the IPCC's reforms will aim to "ensure that even the slightest possibility of someone not adhering to procedures is eliminated completely. We just have to act like monitors at every stage."

The IPCC shared a Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore in 2007 for its report that year declaring climate change "unequivocal" and "very likely" caused by emissions of greenhouse gases due to human activity. Formed in 1988, the group doesn't conduct or fund research, but filters the work of researchers world-wide.

About 30 paid staffers help thousands of scientists who volunteer to assemble voluminous "assessment reports" every five or six years. The goal is to be "policy-relevant" but "never policy-prescriptive," the IPCC says.

The IPCC's budget, about $7 million this year, comes mainly from contributions from the U.S. and other industrialized nations.

Critics also allege a conflict of interest by Mr. Pachauri, the IPCC's chairman, who heads an energy-research institute in India and has done consulting work for multinationals.

Taken together, the organization's troubles raise questions about its quality control in summarizing science. But many scientists say the crisis doesn't undermine independent research demonstrating man's influence on the climate.

"There is a very broad and deep consensus that I buy into that we're producing too much CO2 and it's going to cause problems eventually," said John H. Marburger III, former science adviser to President George W. Bush. Many details remain uncertain, he said, but "I think it's unequivocal that there is a human component."

IPCC leaders including Mr. Pachauri say the IPCC is rigorous and transparent. The IPCC last month expressed "regret" for the erroneous Himalayan statement, traced originally to a magazine article. "The organization has an impeccable record of having performed," Mr. Pachauri said, and its work "always includes the quantifications of uncertainties."

Regarding conflict of interest, Mr. Pachauri said, "I don't take a single penny" from the consulting work. Proceeds go to his energy institute and not to him personally, he said.

As climate change gained public attention in recent decades, some IPCC-affiliated scientists privately expressed concerns that conclusions were risked getting oversimplified. Keith Briffa, a climate scientist at East Anglia, expressed this worry in emails to colleagues in 1999, as work intensified on the IPCC's third major report, published in 2001. Mr. Briffa's particular concern: tree rings.

Scientists use tree rings and other proxies to assess temperatures thousands of years ago, before thermometers existed. Wider rings indicate greater growth, generally suggesting warmer temperatures, or higher precipitation, or both. Mr. Briffa pioneered the technique.

"I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more,' " he wrote to other researchers in the email, among those hacked at East Anglia. "In reality the situation is not quite so simple," Mr. Briffa wrote.

He didn't identify the source of the pressure. A university spokesman said Mr. Briffa wouldn't comment.

The problem: Using Mr. Briffa's tree-ring techniques, researchers in the '90s built charts suggesting temperatures in the late 20th century were the highest in a millennium. The charts were dubbed "hockey sticks" because they showed temperatures relatively flat for centuries, then angling higher recently.

But Mr. Briffa fretted about a potential issue. Thermometers show temperatures have risen since the '60s, but tree-ring data don't move in tandem, and sometimes show the opposite. (Average annual temperatures reached the highest on record in 2005, according to U.S. government data. They fell the next three years, and rose in 2009. All those years remain among the warmest on record.)

In his same 1999 email, Mr. Briffa said tree-ring data overall did show "unusually warm" conditions in recent decades. But, he added, "I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago."

In other words, maybe the chart shouldn't resemble a hockey stick.

The data were the subject of heated back-and-forth before the IPCC's 2001 report. John Christy, one of the section's lead authors, said at the time that he tried in vain to make sure the report reflected the uncertainty.

Mr. Christy said in an interview that some of the pressure to downplay the uncertainty came from Michael Mann, a fellow lead author of that chapter, a scientist at Pennsylvania State University, and a developer of the original hockey-stick chart.

The "very prominent" use of the hockey-stick chart "overrules what tentativeness some of us actually intended," Mr. Christy wrote to the National Research Council in the U.S. a month after the report was published. Mr. Christy, a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, provided that email.

"I was suspicious of the hockey stick," Mr. Christy said in an interview. Had Mr. Briffa's concerns been more widely known, "The story coming out of the [report] may have been different in tone and confidence."

Mr. Mann said in an email interview, "I was not pushing 'hard' for anything of the sort." The chapter's authors, he said, "engaged in a robust, good faith discussion of what the level of certainty was." Mr. Mann also noted that his original 1998 hockey-stick paper stressed the uncertainties involved in reconstructing past temperatures.

Complicating matters, a simplified version of the hockey-stick chart appeared prominently in the 2001 report's "summary for policy makers"—a 34-page distillation of the full report. Thomas Stocker, a climate scientist at the University of Bern and member of the team that wrote the summary, said the team wrestled with how to make the summary "faithful to the full report and yet still comprehensible" to policy makers.

The hockey-stick chart is "the textbook example" of "how difficult the job really is" to summarize the full report, said Mr. Stocker, one of the top scientists overseeing the IPCC's next report, due in 2013 and 2014.

In retrospect, he said, the simplified version should have had more detail. It could suggest a clearer conclusion than the actual chart appearing deeper in the full report. "I think that was part of the problem—that we simplified it," he said. "It's not suppressing information, but it's making it harder for the rapid reader to have the full picture."

Another big issue: The accuracy of complex computer models that underpin the science. Run on supercomputers, these models try to predict how greenhouse-gas emissions might affect temperatures, and how temperatures might affect everything from glaciers to hurricanes.

In September 2000, Filippo Giorgi of the International Center for Theoretical Physics in Trieste, Italy, wrote a worried email. He said he felt pressure to cite simulations that hadn't yet been published in a scientific journal. He worried it showed a relaxation of standards.

The IPCC's rules "have been softened to the point that in this way the IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science (which is its proclaimed goal)," he wrote in the email. Mr. Giorgi added: "At this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes. I think this will set a dangerous precedent."

In an interview, Mr. Giorgi said the pressure he felt came from the panel overseeing his part of the report. The panel was co-chaired by Sir John Houghton, a scientist who previously had chaired the IPCC as a whole.

Mr. Houghton defended his panel's oversight. "Nobody was arguing for 'anything goes,'" he said this week. "Nobody was arguing for making choices that selected anything more dramatic or with a particular message," he said. "Everybody wanted to present the results in the most helpful as well as honest way."

Mr. Giorgi said that including the data ultimately did no harm, because the IPCC report included a disclaimer noting it hadn't appeared in a scientific journal. Eventually, he added, the work appeared in a journal.

Journal Communitydiscuss“ Skeptics grab on to one overstatement (or, in the case of Himalayan glaciers, one blatant mistake) and try to paint the IPCC as propaganda-driven fear-mongers. Most of the IPCC scientists work very hard and are very good at what they do. And they do not feel the need to go out on a limb, as they don't want to be wrong. ”
—Buzz Belleville Some researchers continued to feel pressure to boil down science as work began on the IPCC's fourth major report, published in 2007. Things that are "very difficult to quantify must be quantified to keep the policy makers happy," Mr. Alley, the geoscientist, who teaches at Penn State, said in an interview. "It's a very frustrating thing."

Mr. Alley walked that tightrope in helping write the chapter covering his specialty: the degree to which massive Greenland and antarctic ice sheets might melt, raising sea levels. The problem, he said: "Ice-sheet models are not very good."

Many conversations with policy makers—including Mr. Gore, the senators in Greenland and Christian Gaudin, a French senator—left the clear impression that "we scientists had better get better numbers," said Mr. Alley, adding that he understands their desire for detail.

So the scientists put numbers into the 2007 study, along with a big caveat—what Mr. Alley calls a "punt." The study took into account things like glacier melt in most of the world, but it noted that it excluded what's happening in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, which "we can't predict," Mr. Alley said.

Inevitably, Mr. Alley said, some people have cited the numbers without that caveat.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Gore said he understands the uncertainties, and that he pointed out in statements "that there was essentially an asterisk" on the 2007 report's sea-level projections. "As he understands the situation from the ice-science community, the uncertainty in sea level applies in both directions," meaning sea-level rise could be greater or smaller than projected, her statement said.

In an interview, Mr. Gaudin, the French senator, recalled having lunch with Mr. Alley on a visit to Penn State where they discussed the interplay between scientists and politicians on the "big questions that interest society," notably climate change. Scientific reports, including the IPCC's, "need to have more precision," Mr. Gaudin said. It is "difficult for politicians to make a decision" otherwise.

Mr. Marburger, the former Bush science adviser, said he frequently heard policy makers express frustration at the lack of certainty in many areas of science, including climate. "'Why can't we get better numbers?' Everybody asks that," he said. "But science rarely gives you the right answer. Science tells you what the situation is, but it doesn't tell you what to do."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704188104575083681319834978.html?m od=rss_Today's_Most_Popular

You should click the link and look at the pictures as well.

Sundancefisher

02-27-2010, 07:43 PM

Warming panel, under attack, seeks outside review

By SETH BORENSTEIN (AP) – 3 hours ago

WASHINGTON — The Nobel Prize-winning international scientific panel studying global warming is seeking independent outside review for how it makes major reports.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it's seeking some kind of independent review because of recent criticism about its four 2007 reports.

Critics have found a few unsettling errors, including projections of retreats in Himalayan glaciers, in the thousands of pages of the reports.

Scientists say the problems are minor and have nothing to do with the major conclusions about man-made global warming and how it will harm people and ecosystems. But researchers acknowledge that they have been too slow to respond to a drip-drip-drip of criticisms in the past three months. And those criticisms seem to have resonated in poll results and media coverage that has put climate scientists on the defensive.

"The IPCC clearly has suffered a loss in public confidence," Stanford University climate scientist Chris Field, a chairman of one of the IPCC's four main research groups told The Associated Press on Saturday. "And one of the things that I think the world deserves is a clear understanding of what aspects the IPCC does well and what aspects of the IPCC can be improved."

An independent review "is much needed," said University of Colorado environmental studies scientist Roger Pielke Jr., a longtime critic of the IPCC.

"The IPCC has a long road ahead to regain trust," Pielke said by e-mail.

In a statement issued Saturday by overall IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri the group of volunteer scientists said it tries to be accurate and follow procedures.

"But we recognize the criticism that has been leveled at us and the need to respond," Pachauri said in the statement.

One example of the criticism was a Senate speech earlier this month when Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., called problems with the IPCC "the makings of a major scientific scandal."

"There is a crisis of confidence in the IPCC," Inhofe said Feb. 11. "The challenges to the integrity and credibility of the IPCC merit a closer examination by the US Congress."

The panel shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 with former Vice President Al Gore. The panel was created by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization.

Pachauri's statement said the panel consulted with the United Nations and plans to find "distinguished experts" to review how it write its reports.

There were no details on how the review would be done. They will come sometime in early March, according to Pachauri's statement.

But one of the troubles is that the IPCC is written by most of the world's top experts in climate science. And the experts who don't write it, often review it, so it's hard to find someone both independent and knowledgeable.

That's why the IPCC is most likely to find an outside organization or group — such as a scientific society of a national academy of science — to run the review, Field said.

That panel would then make the decision on who should be part of the review and if former IPCC authors should be part of it. Scientists who write or review the panel's reports say they do not get paid, but sometimes get reimbursed for travel expense and in the end often lose money on the deal.

University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver, who has been an IPCC author in the past, called the IPCC plan and statement "an appropriate and measured response."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ggK0SAzfuF-VQhX90rWvFeIjxkuwD9E4Q9Q00

Sundancefisher

02-27-2010, 07:48 PM

From The Times
February 27, 2010
University ‘tried to mislead MPs on climate change e-mails’
Ben Webster, Environment Editor

* 22 Comments

Recommend? (25)

The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails has been accused of making a misleading statement to Parliament.

The University of East Anglia wrote this week to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee giving the impression that it had been exonerated by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). However, the university failed to disclose that the ICO had expressed serious concerns that one of its professors had proposed deleting information to avoid complying with the Freedom of Information Act.

Professor Phil Jones, director of the university’s Climatic Research Unit, has stepped down while an inquiry takes place into allegations that he manipulated data to avoid scrutiny of his claims that manmade emissions were causing global warming. Professor Edward Acton, the university’s vice-chancellor, published a statement he sent to the committee before giving evidence to MPs at a public hearing on Monday. He said a letter from the ICO “indicated that no breach of the law has been established [and] that the evidence the ICO had in mind about whether there was a breach was no more than prima facie”.

But the ICO’s letter said: “The prima facie evidence from the published e-mails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence.”
Related Links

* Sceptics publish stolen climate e-mails

* Climate change: an apocalyptic vision of Britain

The letter also confirmed the ICO’s previous statement that the university had failed in its duties under the Freedom of Information Act by rejecting requests for data. The university had demanded that the ICO withdraw this statement.

The ICO letter, signed by Graham Smith, the deputy commissioner, said: “I can confirm that the ICO will not be retracting the statement ...The fact that the elements of a section 77 offence may have been found here, but cannot be acted on because of the elapsed time, is a very serious matter.

“The ICO is not resiling from its position on this.”

The ICO cannot prosecute the university because the complaint about its rejection of the information request was made too late. The ICO is seeking to change the law to allow prosecutions if a complaint is made more than six months after a breach of the act.

Dr Evan Harris, Liberal Democrat member of the Science and Technology Committee, said: “It seems unwise, at best, for the University of East Anglia to attempt to portray a letter from the Information Commissioner’s Office in a good light, in evidence to the select committee, because it is inevitable that the Committee will find that letter, and notice any discrepancy.

“It would be a wiser course for the university not to provide any suspicion that they might be seeking to enable the wrong impression to be gained.”

An ICO spokesman said: “The commissioner has provided the select committee with a copy of the January 29 letter to which the university referred in a press statement.

“This is so that the committee can be aware of the full contents. The commissioner has not been invited to give evidence to the committee but stands ready to assist the inquiry.”

A spokeswoman for the university said: “The point Professor Acton was making is that there has been no investigation so no decision, as was widely reported. The ICO read e-mails and came to assumptions but has not investigated or demonstrated any evidence that what may have been said in emails was actually carried out.”

The university last night published its correspondence with the ICO on its website .

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7043566.ece

hal53

02-27-2010, 08:05 PM

Sheesh!!!...and the mods have shut down threads due to wasting band width????...is there global warming/ cooling ???? you bet...it's been going on a lot longer than we have records for....somebody ( ie Gore/Suzuki) thought it would be a great way to cash in....when the chairman of Copenhagen told the leaders of the "have" countries to bring money, the cat was out of the bag....end of story... I for one am tired of it....think I'll go pheasant hunting in this fall in my polluting pick-up!!! BTW if you don't have CO2 you and the world dies!!!!

Sundancefisher

02-28-2010, 09:31 AM

Hi Hal53.

While I strongly recognize your right to not like a particular topic...I find that this topic is probably the single most important topic running today. We are talking about a global request to spend trillions of dollars and alter how we all live and work to the core. No one area or industry is immune when you look at all the repercussions. One psychologist predicts that when people get inundated with a doom and gloom scenario they go through a pattern not unlike dealing with a death or traumatic incident. The final stage is acceptance of the doom and apathy. My concern is people start to ignore what is happening in the science and believe what they last heard to be "true" without seeing what the current day brings to the table. I want to see at least that people have the OPTION to read these latest articles...if they chose to.

As such I respectfully hope you will understand that since this is put into the non fishing portion of the board...and I have tried to keep it confined now to one thread..and that apparently a number of people find it interesting enough to read...whether they approve of the articles or not...it does portray some ongoing scientific updates. While brought to us by the friendly neighbourhood "can't trust the media" folks...99.9% of us got the same doom and gloom ideas from the media. As such...this makes sense.

Anyways...thanks for reading and hope you get out fishing and enjoy today's big game!

Sundancefisher

02-28-2010, 09:35 AM

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7044158.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2

From The Sunday Times
February 28, 2010
UN's climate link to hurricanes in doubt

Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

Research by hurricane scientists may force the UN’s climate panel to reconsider its claims that greenhouse gas emissions have caused an increase in the number of tropical storms.

The benchmark report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said that a worldwide increase in hurricane-force storms since 1970 was probably linked to global warming.

It followed some of the most damaging storms in history such as Hurricane Katrina, which hit New Orleans and Hurricane Dennis which hit Cuba, both in 2005.

The IPCC added that humanity could expect a big increase in such storms over the 21st century unless greenhouse gas emissions were controlled.

The warning helped turn hurricanes into one of the most iconic threats of global warming, with politicians including Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, and Al Gore citing them as a growing threat to humanity.

The cover of Gore’s newest book, Our Choice, even depicts an artist's impression of a world beset by a series of huge super-hurricanes as a warning of what might happen if carbon emissions continue to rise.

However, the latest research, just published in Nature Geoscience, paints a very different picture.

It suggests that the rise in hurricane frequency since 1995 was just part of a natural cycle, and that several similar previous increases have been recorded, each followed by a decline.

Looking to the future, it also draws on computer modelling to predict that the most likely impact of global warming will be to decrease the frequency of tropical storms, by up to 34% by 2100.

It does, however, suggest that when tropical storms do occur they could get slightly stronger, with average windspeeds rising by 2-11% by 2100. A storm is termed a hurricane when wind speeds exceed 74mph, but most are much stronger. A category 4 or 5 hurricane such as Katrina generates speeds in excess of 150mph.

“We have come to substantially different conclusions from the IPCC,” said Chris Landsea, a lead scientist at the American government’s National Hurricane Center, who co-authored the report.

He added: ”There are a lot of legitimate concerns about climate change but, in my opinion, hurricanes are not among them. We are looking at a decrease in frequency and a small increase in severity.” Landsea said he regarded the use of hurricane icons on the cover of Gore's book as "misleading".

Although the new report appears to criticise the IPCC it could mark a new start, showing that the beleagured body can recognise its mistakes and correct them as mistakes or new science emerge.

The Nature Geosciences study was actually commissioned by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), a UN agency which helps oversee the IPCC, in an attempt to resolve the bitter scientific row that had emerged over the relationship between global warming and tropical storms.

That row dates back to the hurricane season of 2004 when four major hurricanes hit north and central America.

It prompted senior IPCC scientists to give a press conference at Harvard University warning that global warming would cause many more such storms.

The claims attracted worldwide attention but Landsea pointed out there was no science so substantiate them and was so angry that he resigned his post as a senior IPCC author in January 2005, issuing a letter accusing the IPCC of having become “politicised”.

He added in the letter : “All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones.”

The following year seemed to have proved him wrong when North and Central America were hit by a series of tropical storms plus seven major hurricanes, including Katrina, which devastated New Orleans.

However he and other researchers have spent the years since then gathering historical evidence showing that hurricane frequency and intensity vary according to an entirely natural cycle, each lasting around 50-80 years.

The last such surge began around 1925 and lasted until about 1955. Conversely there were declines in frequency between both 1910-1925 and from 1955-1995.

Such findings have generated continuing tension among storm researchers and criticism of the IPCC’s stance, so the WMO brought together 10 leading scientists from all sides of the argument to try to resolve it.

Led by Thomas Knutson, a renowned hurricane researcher at Princeton University, the group also included Landsea and Kerry Emanuel, professor of meteorology at MIT. Kerry was a leading proponent of the idea that global warming meant more severe hurricanes.

Julian Heming, an expert in tropical storms at the Met Office, said: “Several of the authors have clashed in the past so the fact that they have co-authored this paper shows they have been prepared to adjust their stance on the basis of the recent research. ”

The IPCC’s reaction to the paper is uncertain but the organisation has confirmed it is reviewing several recent questions raised over its research and considering corrections where appropriate. One senior IPCC scientist, Professor Chris Field, has said he wants the IPCC to bring in new systems for checking and correcting its reports as important mistakes and new findings emerge.

Last Friday environment and climate ministers meeting in Bali also ordered a separate independent review of the IPCC’s leadership under Dr Rajendra Pachauri.

It followed articles in The Sunday Times highlighting the IPCC’s false claim that climate change could melt most Himalayan glaciers by 2035.

The ministers — led by Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary, and his counterparts from Germany, Norway, Algeria and Antigua and Barbuda — said they were not questioning the basic science behind global warming.

Instead, they were concerned with the “aggressive” way in which Dr Pachauri had responded to criticism, including denouncing Indian research suggesting that the glaciers were not melting so rapidly as “voodoo science”.

A spokesman for Gore said the cover of Our Choice was not a scientific diagram but "an artist's rendering of an earth where unchecked global warming has wreaked havoc."

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n3/abs/ngeo779.html

Sundancefisher

02-28-2010, 09:52 AM

Sceptics seek second Climategate panel casualty

By Channel 4 News

Updated on 27 February 2010

Climate sceptics look to take another scalp from the panel investigating the conduct of scientists researching climate change, following leaked emails from the University of East Anglia, writes Nick Scott-Plummer.
(credit:Reuters)

Two weeks ago one member of a panel charged with reviewing the conduct of scientists at the centre of the so-called climategate email row resigned after Channel 4 News revealed comments which called into question his claim to impartiality.

Now climate sceptics are raising questions about another member of the review, although their evidence has been challenged by the scientist concerned.

The audio of an interview that forced Philip Campbell's resignation first emerged on one of the leading climate sceptic blogs.

Now that loose-knit community has turned up another internet link which they claim shows another panellist, Professor Boulton, may not have been honest about links to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (PICC) potentially compromising his independence.

The website for the Independent Climate Change Email Review emphasises that none of its panel "have any links to the Climatic Research Unit, or the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)".

At its launch press conference the head of the inquiry, former civil servant Sir Muir Russell, emphasised: "We are completely independent. We're free to reach any conclusions that we wish. We are free to follow questions wherever they take us."

But Steve McIntyre, a Canada-based sceptic deeply involved in challenging the climate change consensus, has unearthed an apparent copy of Professor Boulton's CV from 2007 in which the last line says he [Boulton] was a "contributor to G8 preparatory groups and Intergovernmental Panels on climate change".

It is not clear whether this is meant to refer to the IPCC itself but the curious case of the purported CV has been leapt upon by many in the sceptic blogosphere who are convinced Professor Boulton has something to hide.

In a statement, the email review panel said: "Professor Boulton has had no formal contact with the IPCC. He has not been a member of the panel nor made any submissions to it".

And when Channel 4 News asked about the claim on the CV, we received this puzzling reply: "The CV published online today is not correct. Professor Boulton has no idea where the final statement referring to the G8 and IPCC comes from, or where/when it has been added. The statement has not featured in his previous CVs."

Professor Boulton sent Channel 4 News a copy of his 2007 CV which did not have the final line. Asked whether he was implying dirty tricks we received another email: "Professor Boulton has no CV with that line on it, because there is no reason for it", adding: "people are free to draw their own conclusions as to why it seems to have appeared now".

Channel 4 News has contacted the IPCC - which confirmed Professor Boulton had no involvement with the latest report. But the UN body also admitted that record keeping about scientists' involvement with the IPCC and earlier reports was not very complete.

So stalemate in another skirmish between the climate change sceptics in the blogosphere and what they regard as the climate science establishment.

Whilst comments made by Philip Campbell to the Chinese radio station proved potentially sufficiently partial for him to feel his position had been compromised, here the sceptics appear not have found the smoking gun.

But this episode is another example of the way the internet is dominating every aspect of the hacked emails saga.

A driven community of bloggers analysing and communicating about the smallest details, unearthing from the darkest corners of the web snippets of information about climate scientists that in some cases might just come back to haunt them.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/sceptics+seek+second+climategate+panel+casualty/3564682

Sundancefisher

02-28-2010, 07:28 PM

MARCH 1, 2010

Climate Group Plans Review

By JEFFREY BALL

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's announcement over the weekend that it will seek independent experts to investigate how factual errors were published in its latest report is a key aspect of the organization's effort to understand and divulge its institutional problems, officials there say.

The announcement by the United Nations-sponsored organization Saturday comes as it gears up to produce another big report on global warming.

The IPCC, which won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for a report that called climate change "unequivocal" and "very likely" caused by human activity, now says it will ask a committee of independent experts to assess why the report contained some factual errors, and to make recommendations as to how the IPCC can prevent such mistakes in the future.

Among the incidents that have cast doubt on the organization's credibility: More than 1,000 emails hacked from an influential U.K. climate-research lab whose research has figured in IPCC reports suggested that scientists there were trying to squelch other researchers who challenged research linking climate change with human activity; and the IPCC expressed "regret" last month that its 2007 report erroneously claimed that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

"We know that there were some problems" with the IPCC's 2007 report, which ran to about 3,000 pages, said Chris Field, a scientist and a leader of the IPCC's next report, due out in 2013 and 2014, in an interview on Sunday. "All the evidence so far is that the problems were relatively minor, but there were problems."

Some scientists who have long criticized the IPCC said an independent review won't be enough to fix what they see as systemic problems in the process by which the IPCC produces voluminous climate-science reports every five or six years.

"The IPCC has had 20 years in this and has become entrenched with a particular view of climate change," said John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He said IPCC reports end up minimizing discussion of dissenting views, a situation he attributes in part to the fact that national governments are involved in selecting which scientists will help write IPCC reports.

Mr. Field said the process by which scientists are chosen to help write IPCC reports "provides a balanced reflection of what's in the scientific literature. If one individual brings strong opinions one way or the other, the process is designed to keep those out."

IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri said in a statement Saturday that the IPCC hopes to have the details of the independent probe figured out by early March. He said IPCC leaders stand firmly behind the "rigour and robustness" of the 2007 report, whose "key conclusions are based on an overwhelming body of evidence from thousands of peer-reviewed and independent scientific studies." But, he said, they "recognize the criticism that has been leveled at us, and the need to respond."

The IPCC's review is likely to be done by a group of respected scientists from various countries, though who will conduct it is still being worked out, said Mr. Field, director of the Carnegie Institution for Science's department of global ecology, in Stanford, Calif. Among the options IPCC leaders are discussing is asking either an international scientific body or a handful of national scientific groups to conduct the review, he said.

"We're going to be incredibly open and quick in releasing further information as it becomes available," Mr. Field said.

The IPCC's 2007 report helped push climate change to the top of the political agenda in much of the world, including in the U.S., where it intensified discussion in Washington about potential legislation to cap greenhouse-gas emissions. But since late last year, several revelations have raised questions about the IPCC's objectiveness and accuracy in producing its reports. In addition to the questions raised by the hacked emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the U.K., and by the 2007 report's Himalayan glacier error, the 2007 report also said that about half of the Netherlands sits below sea level, which Mr. Field said is an error. That error would appear to overstate concern about flooding in the Netherlands. In fact, the portion of the Netherlands below sea level is lower, Mr. Field said; about half the country is believed at risk for flooding.

An important part of the independent review, Mr. Field said, will be coming up with a way for the IPCC to quickly and accurately correct errors in its reports—a procedure it now lacks.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704089904575093922862906324.html?m od=googlenews_wsj

Sundancefisher

02-28-2010, 07:38 PM

This one will be a must watch for study.

Seriously...connecting earthquakes to global warming? Wow... Firstly they can't predict weather 1 or 2 or 3 days in advance let alone 10 days or 100 years. They can't predict with any scientific certainty any pending earthquakes. So now they are going to somehow show a causal link? Please can anyone say "desperate"? That is desperate to take peoples minds off the errors that keep coming up. Trying to say this definitely takes away any credibility the scientists have.

****************************************

Robin McKie
The Observer, Sunday 6 September 2009

Climate change: melting ice will trigger wave of natural disasters

Scientists at a London conference next week will warn of earthquakes, avalanches and volcanic eruptions as the atmosphere heats up and geology is altered. Even Britain could face being struck by tsunamis

Scientists are to outline dramatic evidence that global warming threatens the planet in a new and unexpected way – by triggering earthquakes, tsunamis, avalanches and volcanic eruptions.

Reports by international groups of researchers – to be presented at a London conference next week – will show that climate change, caused by rising outputs of carbon dioxide from vehicles, factories and power stations, will not only affect the atmosphere and the sea but will alter the geology of the Earth.

Melting glaciers will set off avalanches, floods and mud flows in the Alps and other mountain ranges; torrential rainfall in the UK is likely to cause widespread erosion; while disappearing Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets threaten to let loose underwater landslides, triggering tsunamis that could even strike the seas around Britain.

At the same time the disappearance of ice caps will change the pressures acting on the Earth's crust and set off volcanic eruptions across the globe. Life on Earth faces a warm future – and a fiery one.

"Not only are the oceans and atmosphere conspiring against us, bringing baking temperatures, more powerful storms and floods, but the crust beneath our feet seems likely to join in too," said Professor Bill McGuire, director of the Benfield Hazard Research Centre, at University College London (UCL).

"Maybe the Earth is trying to tell us something," added McGuire, who is one of the organisers of UCL's Climate Forcing of Geological Hazards conference, which will open on 15 September. Some of the key evidence to be presented at the conference will come from studies of past volcanic activity. These indicate that when ice sheets disappear the number of eruptions increases, said Professor David Pyle, of Oxford University's earth sciences department.

"The last ice age came to an end between 12,000 to 15,000 years ago and the ice sheets that once covered central Europe shrank dramatically," added Pyle. "The impact on the continent's geology can by measured by the jump in volcanic activity that occurred at this time."

In the Eiffel region of western Germany a huge eruption created a vast caldera, or basin-shaped crater, 12,900 years ago, for example. This has since flooded to form the Laacher See, near Koblenz. Scientists are now studying volcanic regions in Chile and Alaska – where glaciers and ice sheets are shrinking rapidly as the planet heats up – in an effort to anticipate the eruptions that might be set off.

Last week scientists from Northern Arizona University reported in the journal Science that temperatures in the Arctic were now higher than at any time in the past 2,000 years. Ice sheets are disappearing at a dramatic rate – and these could have other, unexpected impacts on the planet's geology.

According to Professor Mark Maslin of UCL, one is likely to be the release of the planet's methane hydrate deposits. These ice-like deposits are found on the seabed and in the permafrost regions of Siberia and the far north.

"These permafrost deposits are now melting and releasing their methane," said Maslin. "You can see the methane bubbling out of lakes in Siberia. And that is a concern, for the impact of methane in the atmosphere is considerable. It is 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas."

A build-up of permafrost methane in the atmosphere would produce a further jump in global warming and accelerate the process of climate change. Even more worrying, however, is the impact of rising sea temperatures on the far greater reserves of methane hydrates that are found on the sea floor.

It was not just the warming of the sea that was the problem, added Maslin. As the ice around Greenland and Antarctica melted, sediments would pour off land masses and cliffs would crumble, triggering underwater landslides that would break open more hydrate reserves on the sea-bed. Again there would be a jump in global warming. "These are key issues that we will have to investigate over the next few years," he said.

There is also a danger of earthquakes, triggered by disintegrating glaciers, causing tsunamis off Chile, New Zealand and Newfoundland in Canada, Nasa scientist Tony Song will tell the conference. The last on this list could even send a tsunami across the Atlantic, one that might reach British shores.

The conference will also hear from other experts of the risk posed by melting ice in mountain regions, which would pose significant dangers to local people and tourists. The Alps, in particular, face a worryingly uncertain future, said Jasper Knight of Exeter University. "Rock walls resting against glaciers will become unstable as the ice disappears and so set off avalanches. In addition, increasing mel****ers will trigger more floods and mud flows."

For the Alps this is a serious problem. Tourism is growing there, while the region's population is rising. Managing and protecting these people was now an issue that needed to be addressed as a matter of urgency, Knight said.

"Global warming is not just a matter of warmer weather, more floods or stronger hurricanes. It is a wake-up call to Terra Firma," McGuire said.

Sundancefisher

03-01-2010, 04:07 PM

Climate scientists quizzed by British lawmakers
By SYLVIA HUI (AP) – 46 minutes ago

LONDON — Academics at a British climate research center at the center of a controversy about the science of global warming defended their work during cross-examination at Parliament on Monday, rejecting allegations that they manipulated climate data.

But a former researcher at the University of East Anglia's prestigious Climatic Research Unit admitted he had withheld some scientific data about global temperatures collected from around the world and written some "awful" e-mails to critics who asked to see his data.

The academics were questioned by lawmakers because a cache of e-mails stolen from the research center and leaked online last year appeared to show that scientists stonewalled climate skeptics, tried to pervert the scientific peer review process, and discussed ways to dodge Freedom of Information requests.

Their disclosure energized skeptics of man-made global warming, who seized on the e-mails as proof that scientists were conspiring to overstate the extent to which the earth was warming or making up the phenomenon entirely.

Questioned Monday by parliament's science committee on why the center did not make its raw climate data and methodology public, former UEA climate researcher Phil Jones said the data was withheld because it wasn't "standard practice" to release it.

He also said a small number of countries which supplied the information had refused to let his center publish it. But he insisted that similar data is publicly available from other sources, such as NASA.

Jones — who stepped down from his position as the head of the center after the e-mail scandal broke — admitted that he was wrong to refuse requests from critics to share his data.

"I've obviously written some really awful e-mails, I fully admit that," he said, referring to one e-mail in which he told a skeptic he didn't want to give him data because "people just wanted to find something wrong with it."

Edward Acton, the university's vice chancellor, argued that the e-mails did not undermine the science of global warming.

"There's absolutely nothing hidden ... it's so overly endorsed by scientists, I'm puzzled we should be working on a savoring of doubt when in fact there is no doubt," he told lawmakers and global warming skeptics.

The scientific community appears to agree with Acton — more than 1,700 researchers signed a statement defending the evidence for climate change late last year.

But some scientists said they were concerned the e-mails showed that the climate research center was intolerant to challenges and raised questions about its integrity.

"The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the (temperature) reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented," the Institute of Physics said.

The university has launched two parallel investigations into the climate center and its work, and police are still working to trace the source of the leak.

Associated Press writer Raphael G. Satter contributed to this report

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gVrs1hPo4BFwmOm6wbHC_YONVtIgD9E63SI00

Sundancefisher

03-01-2010, 10:29 PM

From The Times
March 2, 2010
Prof Phil Jones, climate scientist, admits sending ‘awful’ e-mails
Ben Webster, Environment Editor

The integrity of climate change research is in doubt after the disclosure of e-mails that attempt to suppress data, a leading scientific institute has said.

The Institute of Physics said that e-mails sent by Professor Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, had broken “honourable scientific traditions” about disclosing raw data and methods and allowing them to be checked by critics.

Professor Jones admitted to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee yesterday that he had “written some very awful e-mails”, including one in which he rejected a request for information on the ground that the person receiving it might criticise his work.

In a written submission to the committee, the institute said that, assuming the e-mails were genuine, “worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context”.

The e-mails contained “prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law”, it added.

The institute said that it was concerned by suggestions in the e-mails that Professor Jones and other scientists had worked together to prevent alternative views on global warming from being published. It said: “The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers.”

The institute said that doubts about the veracity of climate science could be overcome if scientists were required to make all their data “electronically accessible for all at the time of publication [of their reports]”.

Professor Jones stood down from his post during an independent inquiry into allegations that he manipulated data and attempted to evade legitimate requests for data under the Freedom of Information Act.

The committee did not ask him about several of the most damaging e-mails he had sent, including one in which he asked a colleague to delete information that had been requested. The committee had been asked not to press him too closely because he was close to a nervous breakdown.

Professor Jones denied that he had tried to prevent alternative views being published by influencing the process of peer review under which scientific papers are scrutinised.

He said: “I don’t think there is anything in those e-mails that supports any view that I have been trying to pervert the peer review process . . .” He added that it “hasn’t been standard practice” in climate science for all data to be disclosed.

Lord Lawson of Blaby, the former Conservative Chancellor and a leading climate sceptic, said that those who wanted to check the university’s research should not have been forced to resort to making requests under the Freedom of Information Act.

He said: “Proper scientists, scientists of integrity, wish to reveal all of their data and all of their methods. They don’t need freedom of information requests to force it out of them.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7046036.ece

Nomad

03-02-2010, 06:28 AM

Looks like these nuts should've been reading your posts Sundance.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587667,00.html

Baby Girl Survives 3 Days With Bullet Inside Her
Monday, March 01, 2010

Print ShareThisA baby girl survived three days with a bullet in her chest as she lay alone beside the dead bodies of her parents and toddler brother in Argentina, the Daily Mail reported.

Francisco Lotero, 56, and Miriam Coletti, 23, shot their 7-month-old daughter and son, 2, before killing themselves. The pair allegedly agreed to a suicide pact over fears about global warming, according to the Daily Mail.

The couple's son, Francisco, died instantly after being shot in the back, the paper reported.

The baby girl, whose name has not been released, escaped the apparent murder attempt after a bullet from her dad's handgun missed her vital organs, according to The Daily Mail.

Worried neighbors alerted police three days later, after discovering the massacre. Paramedics then rushed the blood-soaked baby to a hospital.

The miraculous survivor is now recovering in a hospital in the town of Goya in northern Argentina and is out of danger, according to the paper.

Police discovered an apparent suicide note by the girl's parents in which they outlined their fears over global warming.

Sundancefisher

03-02-2010, 12:16 PM

Updated March 02, 2010
Al's Latest Global-Warming Whopper

NYPost.com

Al Gore's defense of global-warming hysteria in Sunday's New York Times has many flaws, but I'll focus on just one whopper -- where the "Inconvenient Truth" man states the opposite of scientific fact.

Al Gore's defense of global-warming hysteria in Sunday's New York Times has many flaws, but I'll focus on just one whopper -- where the "Inconvenient Truth" man states the opposite of scientific fact.

Gore wrote, "The heavy snowfalls this month have been used as fodder for ridicule by those who argue that global warming is a myth, yet scientists have long pointed out that warmer global temperatures have been increasing the rate of evaporation from the oceans, putting significantly more moisture into the atmosphere -- thus causing heavier downfalls of both rain and snow in particular regions, including the Northeastern United States."

It's an interesting theory, but where are the facts?

According to "State of the Climate" from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, "Global precipitation in 2009 was near the 1961-1990 average." And there was certainly no pattern of increasing rain and snow on America's East Coast during the post-1976 years, when NOAA says the globe began to heat up.

So what was it, exactly, that Gore's nameless scientists "have long pointed out"? A 2008 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "Climate Change and Water," says climate models "project precipitation increases in high latitudes and part of the tropics." In other areas, the IPCC reports only "substantial uncertainty in precipitation forecasts."

In other words, the IPCC said that its models predicted some increases in rain or snow -- not observed them. And only in high latitudes or the tropics, which hardly describes New York or Washington, DC.

In fact, recent research actually contradicts Gore's claims about "significantly more water moisture in the atmosphere."

In late January, Scientific American reported: "A mysterious drop in water vapor in the lower stratosphere might be slowing climate change," and noted that "an apparent increase in water vapor in this region in the 1980s and 1990s exacerbated global warming."

The new study came from a group of scientists, mainly from the NOAA lab in Boulder. The scientists found: "Stratospheric water-vapor concentrations decreased by about 10 percent after the year 2000 . . . This acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000 to 2009 by about 25 percent."

Specifically, the study found that water vapor rising from the tropics has been reduced, because it has gotten cooler there (another inconvenient truth). A Wall Street Journal headline summed it up: "Slowdown in Warming Linked to Water Vapor."

Moisture in the lower stratosphere (about 8 miles above the earth's surface) has been going down, not up.

Aside from clouds, water vapor accounts for as much as two-thirds of the earth's greenhouse-gas effect. Water vapor traps heat from escaping the atmosphere -- but clouds have the opposite effect (called "albedo") by reflecting the sun's energy back into space. And snow on the ground from the IPCC's predicted precipitation in high latitudes would have the same cooling effect as clouds.

What the new research suggests is that changes in water vapor may well trump the effect of carbon dioxide (only a fraction of which is man-made) and methane (which has mysteriously slowed since about 1990).

This raises an intriguing question: Since the Environmental Protection Agency declared that it has the authority to regulation carbon emissions because of their presumed effect on the global climate, why hasn't the EPA also attempted to regulate mist and fog?

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/02/als-latest-global-warming-whopper/

Sundancefisher

03-02-2010, 03:44 PM

OPINION EUROPE MARCH 2, 2010, 5:16 P.M. ET
A Climate of Inquiry
U.N.-appointed experts to probe the failures of the original U.N.-appointed experts.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's weekend announcement that it would establish "an independent committee of distinguished experts" to evaluate its own procedures was intended to stem the tide of criticism washing over the U.N.'s arbiter of global-warming science. In practice, what this means is that another U.N.-appointed panel of "experts" will convene to review the failures of the original experts. This is less than reassuring.

So far, the climate-change establishment's efforts at damage control in the wake of the climategate email leak have left much to be desired. Take the "independent Climate Change Email Review" that the University of East Anglia is funding to look into its own Climatic Research Unit, which was at the center of the climategate controversy in November. The CRU panel's original team of six has already lost one member, Nature Editor-in-Chief Philip Campbell, who withdrew last month over challenges to his impartiality based on a December 2009 interview in which he said "The scientists [involved in the CRU emails] have not hidden the data. . . . they have behaved as researchers should."

Critics have also questioned Geoffrey Boulton's place on that CRU review panel. Mr. Boulton, today a professor emeritus at the University of Edinburgh, has in the past worked at the University of East Anglia's School of Environmental Science, which established CRU in 1972. More recently, Mr. Boulton signed a December 2009 petition, orchestrated by the U.K. Meteorological Office that has collaborated with CRU, declaring "the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities." The petition adds that "we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report," which many of the Climategate scientists helped author. Mr. Boulton told us in an email that his ties to East Anglia were old enough for "any contacts or residual allegiance to have been long since severed," and stressed that his position on global warming was "irrelevant," given that the inquiry in which he's participating is meant to evaluate CRU's work, not the overarching hypothesis of man-made warming.

Prof. Boulton's defense, however, serves only to reveal his bias, which is that the scandal has nothing to say about the underlying science. Any thorough-going investigation, whether of the CRU and its fellow-travelers or of the IPCC process itself, would of necessity start with the question: How has what we've learned about how the science was done affected what we know about how the climate system works?

Some scientists have started to ask that question. The U.K.-based Institute of Physics recently told the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee that "unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context." It added that its concerns go "well beyond the CRU itself—most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change."

There's little evidence, alas, that these "worrying implications" are being followed up within the climate-change establishment, and no sign that Mr. Pachauri's inquiry will come within a country mile of them. In announcing the probe, Mr. Pachauri explained its necessity thus: "We recognize the criticism that has been leveled at us and the need to respond." In other words, Mr. Pachauri appreciates the need to appear to be doing something about the PR beating the global warming consensus has taken.

Two paragraphs down, Mr. Pachauri adds: "Meanwhile, we stand firmly behind the rigor and robustness of the 4th Assessment Report's conclusions. . . . based on an overwhelming body of evidence from thousands of peer-reviewed and independent scientific studies." That is to say, the outcome of Mr. Pachauri's inquiry has already been determined—the science will be found to be sound. Too bad for him that the IPCC is likely past the point where it can salvage its tattered reputation.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704754604575095323026455174.html?m od=WSJ_latestheadlines

Sundancefisher

03-03-2010, 12:32 PM

Global warming may be normal at this point in glacial cycle
Happened last time (followed by Glacier UK), say profs

By Lewis Page
Posted in Environment,
3rd March 2010 10:59 GMT

German and Russian scientists say that it is normal for an interglacial period like the one just ending to finish with one or more brief - in geological terms - spells of warming before the glaciers return.

According to boffins based at the Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung (UFZ) and at the Russian Academy of Sciences, in the Earth's history thus far there have been eras where the glaciers covered much of Europe, lasting about 100,000 years. These are separated by warmer interglacial periods lasting around 10,000 years. We are currently at the end of an interglacial era called the Holocene.

The scientists, looking into the last interglacial period - the Eemian - which ended around 115,000 years ago, say they have found that that it ended with "significant climate fluctuations" before the rule of the glaciers returned.

The scientists got their results by examining ancient lake sediments exposed by modern open-cast mining in Russia and Germany. They believe that the end of the Eemian interglacial epoch saw "possibly at least two" warming events, according to a statement issued by the UFZ.

"The observed instability with the proven occurrence of short warming events during the transition from the last interglacial to the last glacial epoch could be, when viewed carefully, a general, naturally occurring characteristic of such transition phases," concludes UFZ boffin Dr Tatjana Boettger.

Boettger and her fellow researchers say that the Eemian ice-free period wound up with sudden - in these terms - warming spells and serious changes in vegetation. Then the glaciers surged south, at their high tide 21,000 years ago reaching as far as Berlin.

This Weichselian Glacial era ended around 15,000 years ago, leading to the conditions which have been seen for all of human history with the ice caps confined to the polar regions. The UFZ says that this Holocene era reached its "highest point so far around 6000 years ago" and that we might now expect to see sudden warmings and changes as at the end of the Eemian - followed by a slow descent into another freezing glacial era.

"Detailed studies of these phenomena are important for understanding the current controversial discussed climate trend so that we can assess the human contribution to climate change with more certainty," comments Dr Frank W Junge of the Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Saxon Academy of Sciences, SAW) in Leipzig.

The profs' paper Instability of climate and vegetation dynamics in Central and Eastern Europe during the final stage of the Last Interglacial (Eemian, Mikulino) and Early Glaciation can be read here. ®

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/03/global_warming_seen_before/

Sundancefisher

03-03-2010, 12:44 PM

Climate Fluctuations 115,000 Years Ago: Were Short Warm Periods Typical for Transitions to Glacial Epochs?

ScienceDaily (Mar. 2, 2010) — At the end of the last interglacial epoch, around 115,000 years ago, there were significant climate fluctuations. In Central and Eastern Europe, the slow transition from the Eemian Interglacial to the Weichselian Glacial was marked by a growing instability in vegetation trends with possibly at least two warming events. This is the finding of German and Russian climate researchers who have evaluated geochemical and pollen analyses of lake sediments in Saxony-Anhalt, Brandenburg and Russia.

Writing in Quaternary International, scientists from the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), the Saxon Academy of Sciences (SAW) in Leipzig and the Russian Academy of Sciences say that a short warming event at the very end of the last interglacial period marked the final transition to the ice age.

The Eemian Interglacial was the last interglacial epoch before the current one, the Holocene. It began around 126,000 years ago, ended around 115,000 years ago and is named after the river Eem in the Netherlands. The followed Weichselian Glacial ended around 15,000 years ago is the most recent glacial epoch named after the Polish river Weichsel. At its peak around 21,000 years ago, the glaciers stretched as far as the south of Berlin (Brandenburg Stadium).

The researchers studied lake sediments to reconstruct the climate history of the Eemian Interglacial, since deposits on river and lake beds can build up a climate archive over the years. The sediment samples came from lakes that existed at the time, but which have since silted up and been uncovered in the former open cast mines at Gröbern near Bitterfeld, Neumark-Nord in the Geiseltal valley near Merseburg, and Klinge near Cottbus and at Ples on the upper reaches of the Volga, around 400 kilometres north-east of Moscow. Gröbern in Saxony-Anhalt is now seen by experts as one of the most studied places for Eemian Interglacial climate history in Germany. As well as pollen concentrations, the researchers analysed the level and ratios of stable carbon (13C/12C) and oxygen isotopes (18O/16O) in carbonates and organic matter from sediment layers, since these provide information about the vegetation development and an indication of the climate.

The results show a relatively stable climate over most of the time, but with instabilities at the beginning and end of the Eemian Interglacial. "The observed instability with the proven occurrence of short warming events during the transition from the last interglacial to the last glacial epoch could be, when viewed carefully, a general, naturally occurring characteristic of such transition phases," concludes Dr Tatjana Boettger of the UFZ, who analysed the sediment profiles at the UFZ's isotope laboratory in Halle. "Detailed studies of these phenomena are important for understanding the current controversial discussed climate trend so that we can assess the human contribution to climate change with more certainty," explains Dr Frank W. Junge of the SAW.

From reconstructions of climate history, we know that in the Earth's recent history, interglacial epochs occurred only once every 100,000 years or so and lasted for an average of around 10,000 years. The current interglacial epoch -- the Holocene -- has already lasted more than 10,000 years and reached its highest point so far around 6000 years ago. From a climate history perspective, we are currently at the end of the Holocene and could therefore expect to see a cooling-down in a few thousand years if there had been no human influence on the atmosphere and the resulting global warming.

With its expertise, the UFZ plays a part in researching the consequences of climate change and in developing adaptation strategies. You can find more on this in the special issue of the UFZ newsletter entitled "On the case of climate change" at http://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=10690

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100302111912.htm

Sundancefisher

03-03-2010, 12:47 PM

Mass Loss from Alaskan Glaciers Overestimated? Previous Melt Contributed a Third Less to Sea-Level Rise Than Estimated
ScienceDaily (Mar. 3, 2010)

The melting of glaciers is well documented, but when looking at the rate at which they have been retreating, a team of international researchers steps back and says not so fast.

Previous studies have largely overestimated mass loss from Alaskan glaciers over the past 40-plus years, according to Erik Schiefer, a Northern Arizona University geographer who coauthored a paper in the February issue of Nature Geoscience that recalculates glacier melt in Alaska.

The research team, led by Étienne Berthier of the Laboratory for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography at the Université de Toulouse in France, says that glacier melt in Alaska between 1962 and 2006 contributed about one-third less to sea-level rise than previously estimated.

Schiefer said melting glaciers in Alaska originally were thought to contribute about .0067 inches to sea-level rise per year. The team's new calculations put that number closer to .0047 inches per year. The numbers sound small, but as Schiefer said, "It adds up over the decades."

While the team looked at three-fourths of all the ice in Alaska, Schiefer noted, "We're also talking about a small proportion of ice on the planet. When massive ice sheets (such as in the Antarctic and Greenland) are added in, you're looking at significantly greater rates of sea-level rise."

Schiefer said the team plans to use the same methodologies from the Alaskan study in other glacial regions to determine if further recalibrations of ice melt are in order. These techniques use satellite imagery that spans vast areas of ice cover.

Previous methods estimated melt for a smaller subset of individual glaciers. The most comprehensive technique previously available used planes that flew along the centerlines of selected glaciers to measure ice surface elevations. These elevations were then compared to those mapped in the 1950s and 1960s. From this, researchers inferred elevation changes and then extrapolated this to other glaciers.

Two factors led to the original overestimation of ice loss with this method, Schiefer said. One is the impact of thick deposits of rock debris that offer protection from solar radiation and, thus, melting. The other was not accounting for the thinner ice along the edges of glaciers that also resulted in less ice melt.

Schiefer and his colleagues used data from the SPOT 5 French satellite and the NASA/Japanese ASTER satellite and converted the optical imagery to elevation information. They then compared this information to the topographical series maps of glacial elevations dating back to the 1950s.

While the team determined a lower rate of glacial melt during a greater than 40-year span, Schiefer said other studies have demonstrated the rate of ice loss has more than doubled in just the last two decades.

"With current projections of climate change, we expect that acceleration to continue," Schiefer said. This substantial increase in ice loss since the 1990s is now pushing up the rise in sea level to between .0098 inches and .0118 inches per year -- more than double the average rate for the last 40 years.

Working on the Alaskan glacial melt revision with Schiefer and Berthier were Garry Clarke of the University of British Columbia, Brian Menounos of the University of Northern British Columbia and Frédérique Rémy of the Université de Toulouse.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100302123124.htm

Tundra Monkey

03-03-2010, 12:48 PM

Does this now mean we're not gonna get palm trees up here in my lifetime??:mad3: :cry:

tm

Sundancefisher

03-03-2010, 12:51 PM

El Niño and a Pathogen, Not Global Warming, Killed Costa Rican Toad
ScienceDaily (Mar. 2, 2010)

Scientists broadly agree that global warming may threaten the survival of many plant and animal species; but global warming did not kill the Monteverde golden toad, an often cited example of climate-triggered extinction, says a new study. The toad vanished from Costa Rica's Pacific coastal-mountain cloud forest in the late 1980s, the apparent victim of a pathogen outbreak that has wiped out dozens of other amphibians in the Americas.

Many researchers have linked outbreaks of the deadly chytrid fungus to climate change, but the new study asserts that the weather patterns, at Monteverde at least, were not out of the ordinary.

The role that climate change played in the toad's demise has been fiercely debated in recent years. The new paper, in the March 1 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is the latest to weigh in. In the study, researchers used old-growth trees from the Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve to reconstruct moisture levels in that region over the last century. They expected to see global warming manifested in the form of a long-term warming or drying trend, but instead discovered that the forest's dry spells closely tracked El Niño, the periodic and natural warming of waters off South America that brings drought to some places and added rainfall and snow to others.

The golden toad vanished after an exceptionally dry season following the 1986-1987 El Niño, probably not long after the chytrid fungus was introduced. Scientists speculate that dry conditions caused the toads to congregate in a small number of puddles to reproduce, prompting the disease to spread rapidly. Some have linked the dry spell to global warming, arguing that warmer temperatures allowed the chytrid pathogen to flourish and weakened the toad's defenses. The new study finds that Monteverde was the driest it's been in a hundred years following the 1986-1987 El Niño, but that those dry conditions were still within the range of normal climate variability. The study does not address amphibian declines elsewhere, nor do the authors suggest that global warming is not a serious threat to biodiversity.

"There's no comfort in knowing that the golden toad's extinction was the result of El Niño and an introduced pathogen, because climate change will no doubt play a role in future extinctions," said study lead author Kevin Anchukaitis, a climate scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

Average global temperatures have climbed about 0.8 degrees (1.4 degrees F) in the past hundred years, and some studies suggest that mountain regions are warming even more. In search of favorable conditions, alpine plants and animals are creeping to higher altitudes -- not always with success.

In a 2006 paper in Nature, a team of U.S. and Latin American scientists linked rising tropical temperatures to the disappearance of 64 amphibian species in Central and South America. They proposed that warmer temperatures, associated with greater cloud cover, had led to cooler days and warmer nights, creating conditions that allowed the chytrid fungus to grow and spread. The fungus kills frogs and toads by releasing poison and attacking their skin and teeth. "Disease is the bullet killing frogs, but climate change is pulling the trigger," the lead author of the Nature study and a research scientist at the Monteverde reserve, J. Alan Pounds, said at the time.

The new study in PNAS suggests that it was El Niño -- not climate change -- that caused the fungus to thrive, killing the golden toad. "El Niño pulled the trigger," said Anchukaitis

Proving a link between climate change and biodiversity loss is difficult because so many overlapping factors may be at play, including habitat destruction, introduction of disease, pollution and normal weather variability. This is especially true in the tropics, because written weather records may go back only a few decades, preventing researchers from spotting long-term trends.

In the last decade, scientists have improved techniques for reconstructing past climate from tiny samples of wood drilled from tropical trees. Unlike trees in northern latitudes, tropical trees may grow year round, and often do not form the sharply defined growth rings that help scientists differentiate wet years from dry years in many temperate-region species. But even in the tropics, weather can leave an imprint on growing trees. During the dry season, trees take up water with more of the heavy isotope, oxygen-18, than oxygen-16. By analyzing the isotope ratio of the tree's wood, scientists can reconstruct the periods of rainfall and relative humidity throughout its life.

On two field trips to Costa Rica, Anchukaitis sampled nearly 30 trees, looking for specimens old enough, and with enough annual growth, to be studied. Back in the lab, he and study co-author Michael Evans, a climate scientist at University of Maryland, analyzed thousands of samples of wood trimmed to the size of pencil shavings.

Their results are only the latest challenge to the theory that climate change is driving the deadly chytrid outbreaks in the Americas. In a 2008 paper in the journal PLoS Biology, University of Maryland biologist Karen Lips mapped the loss of harlequin frogs from Costa Rica to Panama. She found that their decline followed the step-by-step pattern of an emerging infectious disease, affecting frogs in the mountains but not the lowlands. Had the outbreak been climate-induced, she said, the decline should have moved up and down the mountains over time.

Reached by e-mail, Pounds said he disagreed with the PNAS study. He said that his own 40-year rainfall and mist-cover measurements at Monteverde show a drying trend that the authors missed because they were unable to analyze moisture variations day to day or week to week. The weather is becoming more variable and extreme, he added, favoring some pathogens and making some animals more susceptible to disease.

"Anyone paying close attention to living systems in the wild is aware that our planet is in serious trouble," he said. "It's just a matter of time before this becomes painfully obvious to everyone."

Scientists think climate change may drive plants and animals to extinction by changing their habitats too quickly for them to adapt, shrinking water supplies, or by providing optimal conditions for diseases. Researchers have established links between population declines and global warming, from sea-ice dependent Adelie and emperor penguins, to corals threatened by ocean acidification and warming sea temperatures.

Warming ocean temperatures are likely to have some effect on El Niño, but scientists are still unsure what they will be, said Henry Diaz, an El Niño expert at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency. He said the paper offers strong evidence that climate change was not a factor in the El Niño dry season that coincided with the golden toad's extinction. "Climate change is best visualized as large-scale averages," he said. "Getting down to specific regions, Costa Rica, or the Monteverde cloud forest, it's hard to ascribe extinctions to climate change."

That does not mean humans are off the hook, said Evans. "Extinctions happen for reasons that are independent of human-caused climate change, but that does not mean human-caused climate change can't cause extinctions," he said.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100301151925.htm

Sundancefisher

03-03-2010, 12:55 PM

Global Warming May Hurt Some Poor Populations, Benefit Others
ScienceDaily (Mar. 1, 2010)

The impact of global warming on food prices and hunger could be large over the next 20 years, according to a new Stanford University study. Researchers say that higher temperatures could significantly reduce yields of wheat, rice and maize -- dietary staples for tens of millions of poor people who subsist on less than $1 a day. The resulting crop shortages would likely cause food prices to rise and drive many into poverty.

But even as some people are hurt, others would be helped out of poverty, says Stanford agricultural scientist David Lobell.

"Poverty impacts depend not only on food prices but also on the earnings of the poor," said Lobell, a center fellow at Stanford's Program on Food Security and the Environment (FSE). "Most projections assume that if prices go up, the amount of poverty in the world also will go up, because poor people spend a lot of their money on food. But poor people are pretty diverse. There are those who farm their own land and would actually benefit from higher crop prices, and there are rural wage laborers and people that live in cities who definitely will be hurt."

Lobell and his colleagues recently conducted the first in-depth study showing how different climate change scenarios could affect incomes of farmers and laborers in developing countries. He presented the results on Feb. 20 at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Diego.

Household incomes

In the study, Lobell, former FSE researcher Marshall Burke and Purdue University agricultural economist Thomas Hertel focused on 15 developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Hertel has developed a global trade model that closely tracks the consumption and production of rice, wheat and maize on a country-by-country basis. The model was used to project the effects of climate change on agriculture within 20 years and the resulting impact on prices and poverty.

Using a range of global warming forecasts, the researchers were able to project three different crop-yield scenarios by 2030:

"Low-yield" -- crop production is toward the low end of expectations.
"Most likely" -- projected yields are consistent with expectations.
"High-yield" -- production is higher than expected.
"One of the limitations of previous forecasts is that they don't consider the full range of uncertainties -- that is, the chance that things could be better or worse than we expect," Lobell said. "We provided Tom those three scenarios of what climate change could mean for agricultural productivity. Then he used the trade model to project how each scenario would affect prices and poverty over the next 20 years.

"The impacts we're talking about are mainly driven by warmer temperatures, which dry up the soil, speed up crop development and shut down biological processes, like photosynthesis, that plants rely on," he added. "Plants in general don't like it hotter, and in many climate forecasts, the temperatures projected for 2030 would be outside the range that crops prefer."

Results

The study revealed a surprising mix of winners and losers depending on the projected global temperature. The "most likely" scenario projected by the International Panel on Climate Change is that global temperatures will rise 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) by 2030. In that scenario, the trade model projected relatively little change in crop yields, food prices and poverty rates.

But under the "low-yield" scenario, in which temperatures increase by 2.7 F (1.5 C), the model projects a 10 to 20 percent drop in agricultural productivity, which results in a 10 to 60 percent rise in the price of rice, wheat and maize. Because of these higher prices, the overall poverty rate in the 15 countries surveyed was expected to rise by 3 percent.

However, an analysis of individual countries revealed a far more complicated picture. In 11 of the 15 countries, poor people who owned their own land and raised their own crops actually benefitted from higher food prices, according to the model. In Thailand, for example, the poverty rate for people in the non-agricultural sector was projected to rise 5 percent, while the rate for self-employed farmers dropped more than 30 percent -- in part because, as food supplies dwindled, the global demand for higher-priced crops increased.

"If prices go up and you're tied to international markets, you could be lifted out of poverty quite considerably," Lobell explained. "But there are a lot of countries, like Bangladesh, where poor people are either in urban areas or in rural areas but don't own their own land. Countries like that could be hurt quite a lot. Then there are semi-arid countries -- like Zambia, Mozambique and Malawi -- where even if prices go up and people own land, productivity will go down so much that it can't make up for those price increases. In the 'low-yield' scenario, those countries would see higher poverty rates across all sectors."

Under the "high-yield" scenario, in which global temperatures rise just 0.9 F (0.5 C), crop productivity increased. The resulting food surplus led to a 16 percent drop in prices, which could be detrimental to farm owners. In Thailand, the poverty rate among self-employed farmers was projected to rise 60 percent, while those in the non-agriculture sector saw a slight drop in poverty. In Zambia, Mozambique, Malawi and Uganda, poverty in the non-farming sector was projected to decline as much as 5 percent.

Risk management

Lobell said that, although the likelihood of the "low-yield" or "high-yield" scenario occurring is only 5 percent, it is important for policymakers to consider the full range of possibilities if they want to help countries adapt to climate change and ultimately prevent an increase in poverty and hunger.

"It's like any sort of risk management or insurance program," he said. "You have to have some idea of the probability of events that have a big consequence. It's also important to keep in mind that any change, no matter how extreme, will benefit some households and hurt others."

The Program on Food Security and the Environment at Stanford is an interdisciplinary research and teaching program that generates policy solutions to the persistent problems of global hunger and environmental damage from agricultural practices worldwide. The program is jointly run by Stanford's Woods Institute for the Environment and the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.

Relevant Web URLs

Program on Food Security and the Environment http://foodsecurity.stanford.edu/
Woods Institute for the Environment http://woods.stanford.edu/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100220184329.htm

Sundancefisher

03-04-2010, 12:30 PM

From The Times March 2, 2010

Prof Phil Jones, climate scientist, admits sending ‘awful’ e-mails
Ben Webster, Environment Editor

The integrity of climate change research is in doubt after the disclosure of e-mails that attempt to suppress data, a leading scientific institute has said.

The Institute of Physics said that e-mails sent by Professor Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, had broken “honourable scientific traditions” about disclosing raw data and methods and allowing them to be checked by critics.

Professor Jones admitted to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee yesterday that he had “written some very awful e-mails”, including one in which he rejected a request for information on the ground that the person receiving it might criticise his work.

In a written submission to the committee, the institute said that, assuming the e-mails were genuine, “worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context”.

The e-mails contained “prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law”, it added.

The institute said that it was concerned by suggestions in the e-mails that Professor Jones and other scientists had worked together to prevent alternative views on global warming from being published. It said: “The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers.”

The institute said that doubts about the veracity of climate science could be overcome if scientists were required to make all their data “electronically accessible for all at the time of publication [of their reports]”.

Professor Jones stood down from his post during an independent inquiry into allegations that he manipulated data and attempted to evade legitimate requests for data under the Freedom of Information Act.

The committee did not ask him about several of the most damaging e-mails he had sent, including one in which he asked a colleague to delete information that had been requested. The committee had been asked not to press him too closely because he was close to a nervous breakdown.

Professor Jones denied that he had tried to prevent alternative views being published by influencing the process of peer review under which scientific papers are scrutinised.

He said: “I don’t think there is anything in those e-mails that supports any view that I have been trying to pervert the peer review process . . .” He added that it “hasn’t been standard practice” in climate science for all data to be disclosed.

Lord Lawson of Blaby, the former Conservative Chancellor and a leading climate sceptic, said that those who wanted to check the university’s research should not have been forced to resort to making requests under the Freedom of Information Act.

He said: “Proper scientists, scientists of integrity, wish to reveal all of their data and all of their methods. They don’t need freedom of information requests to force it out of them.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7046036.ece

Sundancefisher

03-04-2010, 12:37 PM

From The Times March 2, 2010

Climate scientists know how to stay calm when in eye of the storm
Anne Treneman

Talk about freak weather conditions. The main characters in “Climategate”, the global harming global warming row, really are the strangest bunch.

First up before MPs yesterday was the mini-hurricane that is Lord Lawson of Blaby, father of Nigella and, incidentally, former Chancellor.

He is now on the board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation which means, of course, that he doesn’t believe in global warming. He calls those who do “climate alarmists”.

But Hurricane Nigel was rather alarming too. He said some climate data revolved around one pine tree that has been around since 1421: “It’s more than it can bear.” The key to the truth, about the lonesome pine tree and all else, is “full and transparent” disclosure of data and methodology from scientists at University of East Anglia.

But then MPs demanded to know who was funding his foundation. Lord Lawson’s rosebud lips pursed. “In football this is called playing the man and not the ball and you get a yellow card!”

He glared at MPs, irritation swirling, and refused to say. Next was Professor Phil Jones, the scientist at the centre of it all, who seemed eerily calm. He was with the excitable (in weather terms, we are talking hailstones) vice-chancellor of UEA, Professor Edward Acton.

Forget men in ivory towers, these two have their heads in the stratosphere. When asked why data hadn’t been made public, Professor Acton said he needed permission from the country whose weather it was: “Canada and Poland are among those who have said no. Also Sweden. Russia is very hesitant!”

Professor Jones’s face was immobile, eyes steady behind wire specs. He seemed, like a dead calm sea, almost glassy. And, like ships in the Bermuda Triangle, questions that got near him just seemed to disappear.

He kept insisting that most of the raw data was public. But, said MPs, what about his method, the codes he’d used. Was that public?

“That is not the case,” he said.

Graham Stringer, a Labour MP, asked why. “Because it hasn’t been standard practice to do that.”

Well, protested Mr Stringer, how could science be tested?

Professor Jones didn’t have much of an answer for that, or much else. Only once did he admit to anything and that was about an e-mail. “Uh. Yes. I have obviously written some very awful e-mails,” he murmured.

Oh dear. It seems the planet is in more trouble than I thought.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/parliamentary_sketch/article7046005.ece

Sundancefisher

03-05-2010, 08:44 AM

Near as I can tell this study did not take into account the latest information. Specifically concerns over African rainfall (there is no anticipated starvation predicted now) also a latest study showed atmospheric moisture rising with increasing temperatures followed by falling which has caused the last 15 years of no warming.

I would expect advocacy groups to be trying to flood the press with more doom and gloom stories and also recycling old stories that the public believes...even today to probably be true.

Still...I wish the media would put in links. Solar sun spot cycles are not discussed here but the article does say the sun has been cooling for 50 years. First I heard of that but where is the study? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation we are in a lull for sun spots and our temperature is dropping. Whe sun spot cycle was active we were warming. That is one theory put forth regarding Earth's temperature cycles. Not sure which theory they are trying to prove with this one?

I also believe there is an increasing concern with believing what the MET office is saying as they are extremely closely tied to the CRU problems and climategate in general. Many theories come from the base work done by Jones et. al. which is in doubt.

Over all...like most stories in the media this one has a lot of conjecture and assumptions unfortunately.

************************************************** ****

Climate scientists fightback: Mankind IS to blame for global warming, say researchers
By David Derbyshire Environment Editor
Last updated at 10:51 AM on 05th March 2010

Climate scientists hit back at sceptics yesterday with a new study which concluded the evidence for man-made global warming was "stronger than ever".
After analysing more than 100 scientific papers published in the last few years, the team of British researchers say there is an "increasingly remote possibility" that the world is warming up because of natural variations in climate..
Instead, man-made global warming - triggered by the burning of fossil fuels - is making its mark on every continent and ocean, they say.
The paper follows growing public scepticism about the global warming , fuelled in part by the Climategate email scandal and the coldest British winter for 30 years.

Dr Peter Stott, from the Met Office Hadley Centre in Exeter, who co-led the study, said the evidence for manmade climate change was stronger than ever.
"What we've shown is that the fingerprint of human influence has been detected in many different aspects of climate change," he said.
"We've seen it in temperature, and increases in atmospheric humidity, we've seen it in salinity changes. We've seen it in reductions in Arctic sea ice and changing rainfall patterns.
"What we see here are observations consistent with a warming world. This wealth of evidence we have now shows there is an increasingly remote possibility of climate change being dominated by natural factors rather than human factors."
The study, published in the journal Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, pulled together findings from 110 scientific papers on climate selected by Dr Stott and colleagues.
More...Head of 'Climategate' research unit admits sending 'pretty awful emails' to hide data
Why it WAS an asteroid smashing into Earth that wiped out the dinosaurs

Most were published since the UN's Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's last major review in 2007.
The studies used computer models to see whether changes in air temperature, sea ice, sea temperature, humidity, rainfall and ocean saltiness recorded in the last 50 years could be explained by nature.
Since 1980, the average global temperature has increased by around 0.5C, they found. The same warming pattern was also found deep in the world's oceans.Natural forces such as volcanic eruptions and cyclical changes in the brightness of the sun could not explain what was happening to the world's climate, Dr Stott said.

The sun's output had actually fallen over the last 50 years, he said.
Even if the sun had got warmer over the last few decades - as some sceptics claim - both the upper and lower layers of the atmosphere should have got hotter.
However, in the last 50 years the lower atmosphere has warmed while the upper atmosphere has actually cooled, Dr Stott said.
Drier parts of there world are getting drier, while wetter regions are getting more rain - a finding consistent with manmade climate change, the report found.
And the amount of mid summer sea ice in the Arctic is also declining over time - despite the natural yearly fluctuations, the study found.
The study comes amid growing public scepticism about climate change.
Scientists have found themselves under attack after hundreds of leaked emails appeared to show climate scientists at the University of East Anglia manipulating figures and blocking Freedom of Information requests from sceptics.
Sceptics have also highlighted flaws in the 2007 IPCC report which wrongly claimed Himalayan glaciers will vanish within 30 years.
Dr Stott said he began the study a year ago - long before Climategate.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1255543/Mankind-IS-blame-global-warming-say-climate-scientists.html

Sundancefisher

03-06-2010, 08:33 AM

The global warming alarmists

Glacial melting, rainforest and crop failures, extreme weather, rising seas: 'Isolated' events that together comprise the 'warmist' message

By Christopher Booker, Daily TelegraphMarch 6, 2010 3:09 AM

The news from sunny Bali that there is to be an international investigation into the conduct of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its chairman Dr. Rajendra Pachauri would have made front-page headlines a few weeks back. But while Scotland and North America are still swept by blizzards, in their worst winter for decades, there has been something of a lull in the global warming storm -- after three months when the IPCC and Dr. Pachauri were themselves battered by almost daily blizzards of new scandals and revelations. And one reason for this lull is that the real message of all the scandals has been lost.

The chief defence offered by the warmists to all those revelations centred on the IPCC's last 2007 report is that there were only a few marginal mistakes scattered through a vast, 3,000-page document. Okay, they say, it might have been wrong to predict that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, that global warming was about to destroy 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest and cut African crop yields by 50 per cent, that sea levels were rising dangerously and that hurricanes, droughts and other "extreme weather events" were getting worse. These were a handful of isolated errors in a massive report; behind them the mighty edifice of global warming orthodoxy remains unscathed. The "science is settled," the "consensus" is intact.

But this completely misses the point. Put the errors together and it can be seen that one after another they tick off all the central, iconic issues of the entire global warming saga. Apart from those non-vanishing polar bears, no fears of climate change have been played on more insistently than these: the destruction of Himalayan glaciers and Amazonian rainforest; famine in Africa; fast-rising sea levels; the threat of hurricanes, droughts, floods and heat waves all becoming more frequent.

What's not happening

All these alarms were given special prominence in the IPCC's 2007 report and each of them has now been shown to be based, not on hard evidence, but on scare stories, derived not from proper scientists but from environmental activists. Those glaciers are not vanishing; the damage to the rainforest is not from climate change but logging and agriculture; African crop yields are more likely to increase than diminish; the modest rise in sea levels is slowing not accelerating; hurricane activity is lower than it was 60 years ago; droughts were more frequent in the past; there has been no increase in floods or heat waves.

Furthermore, it has also emerged in almost every case that the decision to include these scare stories rather than hard scientific evidence was deliberate. As several IPCC scientists have pointed out about the scare over Himalayan glaciers, for instance, those responsible for including it were well aware that proper science said something quite different. But it was inserted nevertheless -- because that was the story wanted by those in charge.

In addition, we can now read in shocking detail the truth of the outrageous efforts made to ensure that the same 2007 report was able to keep on board IPCC's most shameless stunt of all -- the notorious "hockey stick" graph purporting to show that in the late 20th century, temperatures had been hurtling up to unprecedented levels. This was deemed necessary because, after the graph was made the centrepiece of the IPCC's 2001 report, it had been exposed as no more than a statistical illusion. (For a full account, see Andrew Montford's The Hockey Stick Illusion, and also my book, The Real Global Warming Disaster.)

Speedy unravelling

In other words, in crucial respects the IPCC's 2007 report was no more than reckless propaganda, designed to panic the world's politicians into agreeing at Copenhagen in 2009 that we should all pay by far the largest single bill ever presented to the human race, amounting to tens of trillions of dollars. And as we know, faced with the prospect of this financial and economic abyss, December's Copenhagen conference ended in shambles, with virtually nothing agreed.

What is staggering is the speed and the scale of the unravelling -- assisted of course, just before Copenhagen, by the scandal in which e-mails and computer codes leaked from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit.

Their significance was the light they shone on the activities of a small group of British and U.S. scientists at the heart of the IPCC, as they discussed ways of manipulating data to show the world warming faster than the evidence justified; fighting off legitimate requests for data from outside experts to hide their manipulations; and conspiring to silence critics by excluding their work from scientific journals and the IPCC's 2007 report itself. (Again, an analysis of this story has just been published by Stephen Mosher and Tom Fuller in Climategate: The CRUtape Letters).

Almost as revealing as the leaked documents themselves, however, was the recent interview given to the BBC by the CRU's suspended director, Dr. Phil Jones, who has played a central role in the global warming scare for 20 years, not least as custodian of the most prestigious of the four global temperature records relied on by the IPCC.

In his interview, Jones seemed to be chucking overboard one key prop of warmist faith after another, as he admitted that the world might have been hotter during the medieval warm period 1,000 years ago than it is today, that, before any rise in CO2 levels, temperatures rose faster between 1860 and 1880 than they have done in the past 30 years, and that in the past decade their trend has been falling rather than rising.

The implications of all this for the warming scare, as it has been presented to us over the past two decades, can scarcely be overestimated.
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/global+warming+alarmists/2649497/story.html

Sundancefisher

03-06-2010, 08:35 AM

Gorrie: For 'climategate' scientist, nuance is the enemy
Comment on this story »
Published On Sat Mar 06 2010

For two decades, Phil Jones was a household name only at home and among perhaps a couple of thousand scientists studying climate change.

He crunched numbers at Britain's University of East Anglia – charting Earth's temperature – and became director of the university's world renowned Climatic Research Unit.

Things were fine in his world, except that he was accumulating evidence of what he considered a looming global catastrophe and faced increasing harassment from those who insist climate change isn't a problem or, if it is, humans aren't the cause.

This quiet, relatively obscure life ended last fall, when someone hacked 1,073 emails from the Unit's computers, launching the brainlessly named "climategate."

As I've written before, the deniers claimed the messages between Jones and colleagues prove he'd manipulated data and suppressed opposing views.

The Associated Press had five reporters read every message. Their conclusion: The emails showed the "scientists are guilty of anger toward global warming skeptics, but they do not support claims that climate change is a vast conspiracy."

The deniers immediately added the news service to their list of conspirators. More important, they succeeded in making "climategate" the cover for distortions and outright lies that have become widely accepted wisdom.

In a recent BBC interview, Jones – who stepped down as director pending an investigation and says he has received death threats and contemplated suicide – attempted to rebut the deniers. The result illustrates the sorry state of what now passes for discussion of climate change.

Jones spoke the careful language of career scientists out in public. Perhaps naïvely, he made himself his own worst enemy.

Circumspection in his main message opened the door for deniers: "I'm 100 per cent confident that the climate has warmed (and) there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity." That's evidence, not proof.

Jones was asked about average global temperatures since 1860: In general – including the period 1975 to 2009 – they've increased about 0.16 degrees Celsius per decade, he explained. Those measurements cover enough years, and the increase is large enough, to meet technical criteria for statistical significance. Over the past 15 years, the measured increase was 0.12 Celsius per decade. The shorter time and smaller change don't quite pass the test.

Deniers spun this detailed, cautious clarification into an admission of error. Typically, the Globe and Mail's Margaret Wente wrote: "... he dropped a bombshell. He acknowledged there's been no statistically significant warming since 1995." No matter that Earth's temperature is rising – this past January was the warmest on record.

The pattern repeated when Jones answered the question: "When scientists say `the debate on climate change is over,' what exactly do they mean?"

"I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this," he replied in part. "This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties."

To the likes of Lorne Gunter in the National Post this was a "dramatically" changed tone from the "alarmist" Jones; a "new willingness to concede doubt."

But Jones' comment wasn't news: Doubt is inherent in true science. Put beside his main message, this is the scientist sensibly saying we don't yet know everything, but suggesting the evidence makes action prudent.

Climate scientists stand accused of being advocates with their own agenda. The real problem is, though, that blaring opponents overwhelm those who stick to scientific principles and qualifiers.

Jones won't enter the fray on others' terms. He sputtered, "I don't feel this question merits an answer," when asked why, if he had confidence in his science, he didn't "come out fighting."

He'd be damned if he did, as he is when he doesn't.

peter.gorrie@simpatico.ca

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/775179--gorrie-for-climategate-scientist-nuance-is-the-enemy

Sundancefisher

03-06-2010, 07:44 PM

This is now common place for the media to post stories about problems in past scientific findings as they get reviewed and tested by others. The best way it seems for the scientists in question to get out of this ops is to say ..."Yes, we agree that we were wrong about it starting already...but...but...but we are SURE it will happen in the future. We are at a tipping point where any second a flood of terror will begin. We can agree the terror has not started...but be careful...it will start soon if we do not stop our current behavior. Problem with this tact is that it has no scientific foundation, no way to test it, no way to prove it, such that it just becomes part of the religion of YOU MUST BELIEVE OR DIE... In the past if you theory was proven wrong it was back to the drawing board. Not just saying "we are wrong but we eventually will be right so you just have to wait?

This will work in the meanwhile but in the long run it will not.

Funny thing is it appears that the majority of people that believed before still believe now. They believe any proof the scientists were wrong about anything is a plot by denier such that even after reading an article it still falls on deaf ears.

I truly believe that the so called denier group is a wasted effort. Until the UN and IPCC come out and specifically say.."hold the horses...we were wrong" and politicians hear the message will anything change. There is nothing we as individuals or as a group can do to change the status quo. It still behooves us to pay attention however and know what we are paying for.

************************************

Rise in UK carbon emissions disputed by report

Soil deposits of CO2 'not fuelling global warming yet – but will in future'

Juliette Jowit
The Observer
Sunday 7 March 2010

A major study for the UK government has cast doubt over claims that rising temperatures are causing soil to pump greater amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, further fuelling global warming.

In 2005 it was reported in the science journal Nature that over the past 25 years 100m tonnes of carbon dioxide had been released by the soil of England and Wales. The figure cancelled out all emissions cuts in the UK since 1990.

However, a national survey of the soils of Great Britain, funded by the department for environment food and rural affairs, claims to have found no net loss of carbon over approximately the same period.

Scientists have now proposed that a special study group, with an independent statistical expert, should examine why the reports differ and which result is more likely to be correct.

The latest questions follow weeks of claims that predictions about the impacts of climate change have been overstated or miscalculated, including the melting of Himalayan glaciers, and separate allegations of bias based on leaked emails from scientists at the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia.

The author of the latest report, Professor Bridget Emmett of the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH), warned that finding there had been no loss of carbon so far should not be taken to mean the absence of a threat. In the long term, scientists predict a "tipping point" when the faster activity of microbes in warmer soils starts to generate more CO2 than can be absorbed by plants.

"That's when you start losing carbon as a whole," said Emmett. "Most of the models say that will be later this century."

The 2005 report in Nature was based on the National Soil Inventory, carried out initially between 1978 and 1983, and again from 1994 to 2003, by the National Soil Resources Institute at Cranfield University. That study said that from 1978 to 2003 there had been an estimated loss of 4m tonnes of carbon a year from the soils of England and Wales, and the researchers estimated that, because of the higher carbon content of Scotland's peaty soils, the annual loss from the UK as a whole was 13m tonnes a year. The fact that the losses occurred across all types of land use suggested a link to climate change, said the team.

At that time, one of the research team, Professor Guy Kirk of Cranfield University, told a conference: "It had been reckoned that the CO2 fertilisation effect was offsetting about 25% of the direct human-induced carbon dioxide emissions. It was reckoned that the soil temperature emission effect would catch up in maybe 10 to 50 years' time. We are showing that it seems to be happening rather faster than that."

The latest report by the CEH, just released as part of the ongoing analysis of the 2007 Countryside Survey of Great Britain, compared studies between 1978 and 2007. It found carbon concentration in the top 15cm of soil increased over the first two decades, and decreased between 1998 and 2007. The only exception was arable land, where there was a net loss of carbon, probably because of disruption by ploughing.

"Overall there was no change in carbon concentration ... and [we] cannot confirm the loss reported by the National Soil Inventory," states the report.

Kirk told the Guardian that the Cranfield team were still "confident in our results [that] there was a net loss of carbon". But he said subsequent studies had suggested that "at best" 10% of the loss of carbon was due to climate change, and the rest was due to changes in land use and management, such as conversion of grassland to crops.

Reasons being examined for the difference in results include where and how samples were chosen and analysed and how the data was compiled.

"The amount of carbon in topsoils across England and Wales is about 2bn tonnes, so detecting a change of even 4m tonnes per year is very challenging," said Emmett. "Small differences in methods between the two surveys can therefore have a large effect."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/07/carbon-dioxide-global-warming-soil

Sundancefisher

03-07-2010, 07:48 AM

This guy is only speaking of 40 years of history...his lifetime. Snowfall in a localized place. He is in no position to comment scientifically on global warming. He is even less qualified as his mind is clearly made up and he is supposedly a journalist. Still I fully guarantee his right to his opinion and also his write to print what he thinks will sell.

Clearly however he totally missed the influence on ocean currents on our weather here in Alberta. Also he plays straight into the fanatical band wagon of blaming all warming on the oil industry.

Peachy.

Sun

**********************************************
Global warming is real

By Richard Wagamese, For The Calgary Herald
March 7, 2010 5:03 AM

There is no snow in the mountains. It's worrisome because it means a dry spring and a relentlessly parched summer. It means that the threat of wildfire will be high. Further, it means that none of us will be able to get comfortable and enjoy the feeling of the land here and being under its spell. That spell has been broken by the change in weather patterns evidenced by this profound lack of snow.

There are those around here who say that global warming is a myth. Or else they claim that our carbon footprint is insufficient to warrant the dire claims that scientists and environmentalists put forward. For the most part, these are people employed by resource companies who still gain from depleting resources. Or else they're old-school believers insistent on the whole deal being a natural cycle too long in its sweep for any of us to recall. They're firm in their beliefs. The funny thing is though, that they're as nervous as the rest of us.

"Ice is thin," they say when the day's fishing is cancelled. Or they'll say, "We haven't run the Arctic Cat since Christmas." When you look at their faces, the pinched look around their eyes reveals their worry.

"Well pump's running slow. Water table's way down." I've heard that a dozen times at the dump when we gather to gossip after making our run. This from men who have spent 30 years living rurally where relationship with the land becomes as trusted as the motors in the old trucks they drive. Expectation. Reward. Predictability. The logarithm of living with nature.

Where the river snakes through the long valley far below us, there's a full 60 metres of exposed river bottom. At the old ferry crossing, the one that's run for more than 100 years, they're forced to haul cars across a wide flat of mud before they hit current and the operator only shakes his head sadly when asked if he's ever seen that before. He's been at it 40 years. The strangeness of this new phenomenon of warming overwhelms everyone.

My people say that there will come a time when the Earth will call out to us. They say that this is less a prophecy than a teaching because our function here is to act as stewards and we should know the voice of the planet if we're doing what's expected of us. That teaching is being revealed because that time is now. The voice of our planet is choked and dry and cracked because we've forgotten about stewardship and allowed greed and fear of lack to drive us.

My people also say that Creator is loving energy. There are a lot of religions and belief systems around the globe that embrace the same philosophy and the funny thing in that is that with loving energy there can be no lack. Love provides. It's that simple. As a species we have learned fear because we've come to believe in judgment. Strangely enough, loving energy does not judge either.

It means we're left with us. We're left with the grace of self-examination and as a human family we absolutely need to look at our relationship with our Mother. There is no snow in the mountains. We haven't seen a gravel truck in weeks and down in the valley, people eye the widening gravel bed where the river's supposed to flow with the hard squint that comes with seeing the familiar alter right before your eyes.

Global warming is no myth. It's no natural cycle. It's not a conspiracy theory nor is it a deniable glitch that will fix itself. It is a genuine threat to the continuation of our planet and ourselves as a species, as animals as dependent on her life force as newborns at her belly. That's just the stark truth of it.

So we need to look at our relationship with our Mother. We live on a planet and it's amazing how many people wander about incognizant of that. The planet is our Mother and she calls to us now with a voice grown feeble by our lack of attention to her needs. She only wants what's best for us like any mother would. In the end, what's best for us is to pay attention to her needs.

There's no snow in these mountains. There's nothing we can do about that now except pray to be spared from wildfire. But we can change the way we relate to the threat and a prayerful, mindful way is a good beginning. It gives our actions strength and we need to act now in any way we can. As a species we can't afford to be dragged across the mud before we find the current.
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

http://www.calgaryherald.com/Global+warming+real/2650735/story.html

Sundancefisher

03-07-2010, 07:29 PM

Thank God we are warming than it was 716.5 million years ago. They certainly appreciated the pending "global warming".

*******************************************
Snowball Earth: New Evidence Hints at Global Glaciation 716.5 Million Years Ago

ScienceDaily (Mar. 5, 2010) — Geologists have found evidence that sea ice extended to the equator 716.5 million years ago, bringing new precision to a "snowball Earth" event long suspected to have taken place around that time.

Led by scientists at Harvard University, the team reports on its work in the journal Science. The new findings -- based on an analysis of ancient tropical rocks that are now found in remote northwestern Canada -- bolster the theory that our planet has, at times in the past, been ice-covered at all latitudes.

"This is the first time that the Sturtian glaciation has been shown to have occurred at tropical latitudes, providing direct evidence that this particular glaciation was a 'snowball Earth' event," says lead author Francis A. Macdonald, an assistant professor in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard. "Our data also suggests that the Sturtian glaciation lasted a minimum of 5 million years."

The survival of eukaryotic life throughout this period indicates sunlight and surface water remained available somewhere on the surface of Earth. The earliest animals arose at roughly the same time, following a major proliferation of eukaryotes.

Even in a snowball Earth, Macdonald says, there would be temperature gradients on Earth and it is likely that ice would be dynamic: flowing, thinning, and forming local patches of open water, providing refuge for life.

"The fossil record suggests that all of the major eukaryotic groups, with the possible exception of animals, existed before the Sturtian glaciation," Macdonald says. "The questions that arise from this are: If a snowball Earth existed, how did these eukaryotes survive? Moreover, did the Sturtian snowball Earth stimulate evolution and the origin of animals?"

"From an evolutionary perspective," he adds, "it's not always a bad thing for life on Earth to face severe stress."

The rocks Macdonald and his colleagues analyzed in Canada's Yukon Territory showed glacial deposits and other signs of glaciation, such as striated clasts, ice rafted debris, and deformation of soft sediments. The scientists were able to determine, based on the magnetism and composition of these rocks, that 716.5 million years ago they were located at sea level in the tropics, at about 10 degrees latitude.

"Because of the high albedo of ice, climate modeling has long predicted that if sea ice were ever to develop within 30 degrees latitude of the equator, the whole ocean would rapidly freeze over," Macdonald says. "So our result implies quite strongly that ice would have been found at all latitudes during the Sturtian glaciation."

Scientists don't know exactly what caused this glaciation or what ended it, but Macdonald says its age of 716.5 million years closely matches the age of a large igneous province stretching more than 1,500 kilometers (932 miles) from Alaska to Ellesmere Island in far northeastern Canada. This coincidence could mean the glaciation was either precipitated or terminated by volcanic activity.

Macdonald's co-authors on the Science paper are Phoebe A. Cohen, David T. Johnston, and Daniel P. Schrag at Harvard; Mark D. Schmitz and James L. Crowley of Boise State University; Charles F. Roots of the Geological Survey of Canada; David S. Jones of Washington University in St. Louis; Adam C. Maloof of Princeton University; and Justin V. Strauss.

This work was supported by the Polar Continental Shelf Project and the National Science Foundation's Geobiology and Environmental Geochemistry Program.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100304142228.htm

Sundancefisher

03-08-2010, 12:51 PM

Without some background information this article would seem reasonable.

However Jones has in fact stated to the British inquiry that:

1) There has been no statistical warming in the last 15 years.

2) There is no statistical difference between this warming cycle and past warming cycles...that in fact we have seen very similar trends in the past.

It does not appear this journalist is paying attention. However...interestingly enough this article or similar written interpretations have been circulated heavily in North America.

Also all studies proving global warming to date are based upon speculation of future rises in temperatures...which in the last 15 years...never materialized.

Now this article tries to blame oil and gas and also see to say that everyone that does not believe is a tobacco lobbyist. Hopefully the smart reporters will realize when we stop decenting opinion we stop good science...when all independent thinking stops...Journalists are the first to die in the ensuing dictatorship or fascist state.

He also misses all the other ops...

Like
soilgate
Datagate
Sealevelgate
climategate
glaciergate
africagate
Australianfiregate
Froggygate
Watervapourgate

What this tells me is that there is no consensus but rather money is not being allocated fairly for research. Those ideologically in favor of global warming gets first crack...then some studies trickle out without being somehow controlled. This makes sense since this last study on Africagate was proven false then instantly the IPCC is saying ...but wait...I found something else for the media. When the Glaciergate blew up they did not announce the following study showing increased soot may be in blame to a large degree. I see this as a forever changing dynamic and fluid scientific debate and one that is certainly not settled by any shape of the imagination. When the hockey stick graph was proven scientifically incorrect and invalid the IPCC never issued the retraction that they are being forced to today. While still strongly automous...they are feeling the pinch. Still people I know that "believe" think even a link to an IPCC mistake is a trick...they just don't believe it. I don't think anything will change their mind...it is a fast moving snowball going downhill fast.

So what is left? Scare people that the tobacco industry is out to get us through carbon dioxide? Scare people into believing an earthquake will kill us due to global warming? Scare people into believing a hurricane will still kill us or a drought or a rain storm or a snow storm? Blame global warming on the lack of snow this year at the Olympics but ignore that tons of snow they had the year before? Blame global warming on the need to raise taxes in BC but ignore the record cold in Great Britian?

In the article below they offset the Amazongate scandal by saying "could react drastically to even slight reductions in precipitation " no matter how you slice it they can't prove or say with any confidence that the rainforest would receive less rain. They just can't predict the weather period. If we could be certain with any confidence that in 30 years the Amazon will have less rain storms...why can't they predict our precipitation accurately 3 days out? Because these sorts of studies are "what if" studies. Assumption based studies that says..."if next week is walking along and reached a street corner...what happens if the person goes left one block or right one block"? There is no certainty if that person will do that or will do that at that block or which direction they will go. Variables in this scenario are far, far fewer than those that go into global warming simulations/models. That is why they are never correct and always being revised and re-run.

Then linking not sure about global warming to being on the tobacco side? Ludicrious. A scientist can introduce the carinogen into an animal...cancer forms. This study is repeated by many scientists...in many countries...results...cancer forms. Therefore we believe cancer forms. In the global warming model...a scientist says we introduce CO2...warming occurs. Others say it is true...warming occurs...the main scientist (Jones) says we have been pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere every year. in the last 15 years...there has been no statistal warming. He then says also there have been similar warming trends in the past...with no significant differences to past warming cycles than to today. More science says should warming happen...this or that will occur...bad stuff...scary stuff. What about the basic science...carcinogens cause cancer...proven. CO2 causes global warming...not so proven according to the own words of Jones. what is going on here folks?

I like how the guy says the climategate emails were "stolen"...like this is different than any other whistle blower example. Clearly improprieties occurred. What the ramifications are is yet to be determined.

We are definitely on a tipping point and not with global warming...but with allowing fanatics from either side to control our lives. IMHO
**********************************************

Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION

Global warming theories are as valid as ever
By: The Los Angeles Times

8/03/2010 1:00 AM

In its 2007 report on the effects of global warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated that glaciers could vanish from the Himalayas by 2035. As has since been widely reported, with ill-disguised glee by many blogs and right-wing news outlets, this was a blunder. The prediction didn't come from a peer-reviewed scientific study but from a prominent Indian glacier expert who was quoted in a British popular science magazine -- and who now claims he never gave such a date.
This wasn't the only error in the report, which has been a key justification of international efforts to fight climate change. It also claimed that 55 per cent of the Netherlands is below sea level; actually, it's only 26 per cent (the number came from the Dutch government, which has acknowledged its error). Other mistakes have been alleged, and it would be surprising if more weren't found, given that the report runs to 3,000 pages and attempts to summarize peer-reviewed studies and other complex evidence submitted by thousands of scientists around the world.

Except for the glaring glacier mistake, most of the alleged errors are minor, and some may not be errors at all. A controversial claim that up to 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest could react drastically to even slight reductions in precipitation apparently came from a World Wildlife Fund report rather than a peer-reviewed study, but a leading Amazon researcher has since affirmed that the number is correct. Still, the fact that reports from popular science magazines and environmental advocacy groups could have found their way into a document of such magnitude suggests the IPCC isn't living up to its own standards. So we applaud the panel's announcement that it is appointing an independent committee to investigate the matter and ensure adherence to scientific procedures.

That's not enough for global warming deniers, of course. Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) asserts that the IPCC mistakes, combined with emails stolen from a British climate research centre suggesting some scientists let their political views compromise their objectivity, prove his contention that climate change theory is a hoax.

Nonsense. Although the IPCC errors have cast some light on the problems that arise when policymakers' demands for hard numbers conflict with the uncertainties of climate forecasting, they have done nothing to shake bedrock conclusions that the world is warming and that greenhouse gases generated by humans are the cause.

Inhofe and others are waging a calculated misinformation campaign, seizing on every error or gap in scientific knowledge to cast doubt on research findings and portray scientists as villains. An identical strategy succeeded in delaying government action against tobacco companies for years despite overwhelming evidence of the hazards of cigarettes; this time, more than our lungs are at stake.

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition March 8, 2010 A10

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/editorials/global-warming-theories-are-as-valid-as-ever-86811972.html

Okotokian

03-08-2010, 01:08 PM

I'm just posting because I think there should be posts from at least two people on each page.

We now return you to our regularly scheduled flurry of Sundancefisher posts. :D

maxpower2506

03-08-2010, 01:21 PM

Has anyone noticed how quiet the GLOBAL WARMING crowd is now that they have been exposed as the liars they are the silence is deafening :cry::tongue2::huh::lol::confused::)

rugatika

03-08-2010, 01:56 PM

Has anyone noticed how quiet the GLOBAL WARMING crowd is now that they have been exposed as the liars they are the silence is deafening :cry::tongue2::huh::lol::confused::)

It causes vocal chords in believers to seize up. Damn global warming...anything bad that happens is caused by it. :lol::lol:

That's 4 posters on this page already...keep up the good work Sundance.

Badback

03-08-2010, 02:48 PM

It causes vocal chords in believers to seize up. Damn global warming...anything bad that happens is caused by it. :lol::lol:

That's 4 posters on this page already...keep up the good work Sundance.

Make it 5 posters on one page.

Sundancefisher

03-08-2010, 04:12 PM

E-mail leaks that clouded climate issue
By Fiona Harvey

Published: March 8 2010 19:34 | Last updated: March 8 2010 19:34

Every night, Anthony Watts blogs on developments in a climate change scandal that he helped uncover. The routine has made the Californian meteorologist one of the most followed global warming sceptics in the world.

“It’s busier than ever – it’s hard to keep up,” says Mr Watts, a TV weatherman for 25 years who now sells weather equipment. “I’ve been blogging every day and some days I wish I could take a vacation.”

Mr Watts is at the centre of a loose network of internet sites where sceptics criticise climate change science. His life changed last November when he was sent e-mails that became known as “climategate” and showed climate scientists at the University of East Anglia in the UK refusing to release information and allegedly distorting data.

After posting the e-mails on wattsupwiththat.com, his website, traffic tripled, recently topping 37m hits since it was set up. He now receives about 3.5m visitors a month.

Sceptics have had much to celebrate in recent weeks, with “climategate” allowing them to challenge scientific findings as well as growing evidence they are swaying public opinion.

“Climategate is a very big scandal and it is only going to get bigger,” says Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington. “I don’t think the climate alarmists can ever recover from this.”

The e-mails were followed by revelations of flaws in the reports of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, chiefly a claim that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

Among people who doubt the world is warming as the result of human activity, the claims are greeted with glee. “It’s clear that [these scientists] make a lot of this stuff up,” says Mr Ebell. “They are primarily interested in the political impact of what they do, rather than being good scientists.”

The issue has brought to the fore thousands of amateur scientists and political bloggers who have toiled for years to point out what they regard as falsehoods by climate academics.

Julian Morris of the International Policy Network, a UK think-tank, says sceptic bloggers have been key in challenging the consensus view. “This was largely amateur scientists investigating claims that were made by supposedly professional scientists, then having discussions about it on the internet,” he says.

There are also a few well funded sceptic groups, such as the US-based Heartland Institute, supported to the tune of $5.2m in 2007, the latest year for which figures are available.

These blogs have also seen a sudden surge in traffic. Marc Morano, who runs ClimateDepot.com, says: “No one believes [the mainstream scientists] as they have overreached themselves and brought in politics. It became a silly game where they were trying to scare people.”

In the UK, “climategate” has become a political issue. MPs on an influential committee grilled climate scientists and sceptics last week in parliament’s first hearing into the scandal.

For mainstream scientists, the surge in sceptic popularity is frustrating. They say only a handful of flaws has been found in the IPCC’s work and it does not affect the main conclusions, forged by thousands of scientists through decades of research, that human activity is warming the climate.

Nevertheless, public opinion is being swayed: in the UK, an Ipsos poll of 1,043 people found the number describing climate change as a reality was down from 44 per cent last year to 31 per cent.

There are signs people view climate research less as a science than as a belief system. Robert Spicer, professor at the UK’s Open University, says: “I am often asked if I ‘believe’ in global warming as if [it] were a religion. It is not a case of belief [but] evaluating evidence – and the evidence is overwhelming.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a6c0411c-2adf-11df-886b-00144feabdc0.html

Sundancefisher

03-09-2010, 02:44 PM

Global Warming: Gore Vs. Gunter

There's no crisis -- the only thing heating up is the debate

By Lorne Gunter, National Post
March 8, 2010

If you are driving a car (say an unrepaired Toyota) and it suddenly surges up to very high speeds, then runs out of gas, it may be true that the first 100 metres after the tank goes dry are the fastest 100 metres the car has ever travelled. It does not follow, though, that the car is still accelerating dangerously. Or at all.

In their attempt to repair the recent damage to their climate-change cause, environmentalists -- such as former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore, whose defence of the climate-change theory appears opposite -- have begun pointing out that the last decade was "the hottest decade since modern records have been kept."

"What is important," Mr. Gore writes, is not the errors and manipulations recently uncovered in the work of the UN and leading climate scientist, but rather "that the overwhelming consensus on global warming remains unchanged."

To both claims, I say, "So what?" Since 1998, we haven't seen things heating up. One of the four main sources of worldwide temperatures (NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies) claims 2005 was hotter -- slightly-- than 1998. But the point is, the trend over the last 12 years been roughly flat. The earth is not getting warmer, at least not significantly. Global warming has paused.

So think of the climate like our runaway car. Temperatures rose rapidly from 1979. Yet after 1998, the climb seems to have run out of gas. It's been warm since, but it is no longer getting warmer rapidly, if at all.

So what if 2000-2009 was the hottest decade since modern records began being kept 150 years ago? That could just be a hangover from the warming between the late 1970s and the mid-1990s. Before our speeding sedan began to slow, it was still moving along at a pretty good clip, too, despite having no more fuel.

As for Mr. Gore's claim that the "overwhelming consensus" among scientists continues to support his alarmist view of future climate, it bears remembering that scientific truth is never determined by a show of hands. If it were, the sun would revolve around the Earth, which would be flat.

Less facetiously (and more importantly), Mr. Gore's vaunted consensus has cracks in it that were not there before the release last November of thousands of damning emails and computer files from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Britain and the discovery since December of more than a score of embarrassing misstatements in the 2007 assessment report of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- the holy book of the current global-warming religion.

Last month, for instance, Phil Jones, the British climate professor at the heart of the "Climategate" email scandal, told the BBC there had been no significant

warming since 1995. He insisted the warming since then had been almost significant. And he added that the warming from 1979 to today had been statistically significant at a 95% confidence level. But the important admission in his interview was that for the past 15 years there has been only a slight warming, within the margin of statistical error.

If you had known for the past 15 years that global warming was on hiatus, would you have been as worried about climate change as you were? Would you have supported politicians promising to make elaborate, expensive changes in our way of life to avert dangerous warming?

Mr. Jones, while maintaining a "100%" belief in the warming theory, also conceded that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) from about 900 to 1300 may have been warmer than today. While this may sound like hair-splitting, this concession is extremely important, because if there was a time before SUVs and coal-fired power plants and carbon footprints that was warmer than today, that makes the rise of temperatures in the past century potentially unremarkable.

And it makes it potentially a natural phenomenon.

For the past decade or more, climate-change alarmists have tried to deny the existence of the Medieval Warm Period (which used to be known as the Medieval Optimal before it became politically incorrect to think of a warm climate as desirable). Grapes grew in southern England. Norse settlers established farms in Greenland. And the plagues and territorial wars driven by scarcity that marked the Late Middle Ages were centuries in the future -centuries notable for their coldness during the Little Ice Age (1300 to 1850).

This drive to erase the MWP from climate history is what led

to the infamous "hockey stick" graph that is so central to the UN's claims that our current warm period is to be feared. Scientists such as Mr. Jones know that if they can establish that there was no other warm era in the past 1,000 years -- if global temperatures were mild and stable for the first 900 years and only shot up in the past 100 years as human production of carbon dioxide has increased -- then industrialization can be blamed for threatening a climate apocalypse and the UN (and smart, activist scientists such as those at the CRU and IPCC) will have to be called in to help Al Gore save the planet by directing us all how to live.

"Droughts are getting longer and deeper," Mr. Gore insists. And they may be. But they were long and deep in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, too. And one thing that era had in common with this one was a lack of solar activity. Sun spots then, as now, were at a minimum. Perhaps solar calmness, not atmospheric CO2, has something to do with droughts.

The former vice-president also clings to the belief that global warming will lead to more intense storms -hurricanes, tornadoes, torrential rains and so on -even though the links between severe storms and global warming, like the links between global warming and Himalayan glacier melt, Amazon deforestation, sea-level rise, African crop declines and Arctic ice melt, have been debunked, or at the very least called into doubt.

For instance, according to the U.S. Storm Prediction Center, last month had the fewest tornadoes (one weak one in California) of any February since records have been kept. Last August was the first month in nearly a century without any recorded sun spots. And since 2005, when Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, there has been just one major hurricane (Category 4 or higher) to hit the U.S. Indeed, there are fewer hurricanes now that at any time since the 1960s.

None of this, nor the recent lack of additional warming , was predicted by the computer models the UN relies on for its forecasts of devastating future climate change which calls into question the ability of these models -in which Mr. Gore puts so much faith -to predict climate changes, good or bad, over the next century.

Honey bees aren't dying off because of global warming; they're dying off because of a tiny mite that has plagued hives for decades. Polar bears aren't dying off for lack of food to eat or ice to cling to. They aren't dying off, period.

And the devastating melt of Arctic ice in 2007? Turns out the ice did not melt "in place." According to a recent study by scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California, wind pushed more Arctic ice than usual out into the Atlantic that year where it melted simply because that ocean is warmer than its Arctic counterpart. Not because the Arctic is warming rapidly.

Could this wind shunting have been caused by global warming? Sure. But it just as easily could have other, natural causes.

The point is, there is no consensus on climate science. There never has been. By flinging names like "deniers" at skeptical scientists, barring them from IPCC deliberations, preventing them from seeing the warmers' raw climate data and keeping them from having their papers peer reviewed, activists like Mr. Gore and the scientists who agree with them have created an artificial consensus.

While that may be good politics, it is very bad science.

lgunter@shaw.ca

© Copyright (c) National Post

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/Global+Warming+Gore+Gunter/2653334/story.html

classiccanadianblizzard

03-09-2010, 08:39 PM

I'm just posting because I think there should be posts from at least two people on each page.

We now return you to our regularly scheduled flurry of Sundancefisher posts. :D

X6 :evilgrin:

Sundancefisher

03-09-2010, 09:41 PM

From The Times
March 10, 2010
UN to review errors made by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Ben Webster, Environment Editor

The United Nations is to announce an independent review of errors made by its climate change advisory body in an attempt to restore its credibility.

A team of the world’s leading scientists will investigate the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and ask why its supposedly rigorous procedures failed to detect at least three serious overstatements of the risk from global warming.

The review will be overseen by the InterAcademy Council, whose members are drawn from the world’s leading national science academies, including Britain’s Royal Society, the United States National Academy of Sciences and the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

The review will be led by Robbert Dijkgraaf, co-chairman of the Interacademy Council and president of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.

He has been asked to investigate the internal processes of the IPCC and will not consider the overarching question of whether it was right to claim that human activities were very likely to be causing global warming.

The review, which will be announced in New York by Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary General, and Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, is expected to recommend stricter checking of sources and much more careful wording to reflect the uncertainties in many areas of climate science.

The IPCC’s most glaring error was a claim that all Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. Most glaciologists believe it would take another 300 years for the glaciers to melt at the present rate.

It also claimed that global warming could cut rain-fed North African crop production by up to 50 per cent by 2020. A senior IPCC contributor has since admitted that there is no evidence to support this claim.

The Dutch Government has asked the IPCC to correct its claim that more than half the Netherlands is below sea level. The environment ministry said that only 26 per cent of the country was below sea level.

The allegations about climate scientists are believed to have contributed to a sharp rise in public scepticism about climate change. Last month an opinion poll found that the proportion of the population that believes climate change is an established fact and largely man-made has fallen from 41 per cent in November to 26 per cent.

The Met Office, which produces the global temperature record used by the IPCC in its reports, has proposed a separate review of its data after admitting that public confidence in its findings had been undermined.

The Met Office relies on analysis by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, which is under investigation over allegations that its director manipulated raw data and tried to hide it from critics.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7055999.ece

Sundancefisher

03-10-2010, 10:27 AM

Is it any coincidence that for years and years the IPCC never put out any reports identifying the little ice ages medieval warming periods and stuck with the smoothed models of Jones? Now that Jones admitted there were cold and warm periods not unlike we have today.

So now we start getting reports out in the media that says ...Yes we know it happened...but warming is way to bad to help. Did they not also read where he said there has been no significant warming in 15 years?

************************************************** **************
Sun won't stop global warming if dims as in 1600s
Wed Mar 10, 2010 9:42pm IST

By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent

OSLO (Reuters) - A dimming of the sun to match conditions in the "Little Ice Age" of the 17th century would only slightly slow global warming, a study indicated on Wednesday.

A weakening of solar activity in recent years, linked to fewer sunspots, would cut at most 0.3 degree Celsius (0.5 F) from a projected rise in temperatures by 2100 if it becomes a long-lasting "Grand Minimum" of brightness, they said.

"The notion that we are heading for a new Little Ice Age if the sun actually entered a Grand Minimum is wrong," Georg Feulner, lead author of the study at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said in a statement.

World temperatures are likely to rise by between 3.7 and 4.5 degrees Celsius by 2100 if greenhouse gas emissions keep building up -- far more than the impact of known shifts in solar output, the study showed.

The sun has gone through four Grand Minima since the 13th century, including the Maunder Minimum from 1645-1715 that overlapped with the Little Ice Age. The Thames River froze in London, for instance, during a "Great Frost" of 1683-84.

World temperatures have risen 0.7 Celsius since the Industrial Revolution led to increasing use of fossil fuels that release greenhouse gases when burned, according to the U.N. panel of climate scientists.

DIM SUN

"Current temperature data also confirm that the effect of low solar activity on the climate is very small," said Stefan Rahmstorf, also of the Potsdam Institute, of the study published on Wednesday in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Despite a deep winter chill in parts of Europe and North America, January 2010 was the equal second warmest January worldwide since records began in the 19th century, according to NASA data. The warmest January was in 2007.

Feulner told Reuters that some who doubted that human activity was to blame for global warming had wrongly suggested that a prolonged solar slowdown "might rescue us from global warming."

Sunspots, dark dots caused by shifts in the sun's magnetic field, go through an 11-year cycle. Periods with few sunspots paradoxically indicate weaker solar output.

"We have experienced a low and long solar minimum on its current 11-year cycle. Some solar scientists have suggested that it might indicate a the start of a type of Maunder Minimum," Feulner said.

Feulner said temperatures fell by a few tenths of a degree Celsius in past Grand Minima.

The Little Ice Age had the strongest cooling effect in parts of the northern hemisphere -- perhaps because an increase in Arctic sea ice reflected heat back into space, or because of shifts in winds or ocean currents.

http://in.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idINTRE62939O20100310?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

Sundancefisher

03-10-2010, 10:30 AM

California global warming law may lead to job losses, report says

The state's nonpartisan legislative analyst's office says the losses could occur in the short term. State Sen. David Cogdill uses the report to criticize climate regulation.

By Margot Roosevelt

March 10, 2010

Debate over the economic effects of California's first-in-the-nation global warming law flared this week, with a report saying short-term job losses can be expected.

The state's nonpartisan legislative analyst's office examined 2008 economic modeling by the California Air Resources Board and concluded that it "may overstate the number of jobs" attributable to future implementation of the 2006 climate law.

While acknowledging the uncertainty of such projections, the report said, "On balance, however, we believe that the aggregate net jobs impact in the near term is likely to be negative, even after recognizing that many of the . . . programs phase in over time."

The report comes at a politically charged moment, when polls show employment to be Americans' top concern. Signature gathering began last week on a November ballot initiative that would delay the law, known as AB 32, until unemployment drops to 5.5% for at least a year. California joblessness is over 12% today.

The report came in response to a query from Sen. Dave Cogdill (R-Modesto), a critic of the law. Released by Cogdill on Monday, the report emphasized that job effects are "difficult to accurately predict . . . with gains in some occupations (including so-called green jobs) and losses in others (primarily involving fossil fuel-related energy production)."

Long term, any effect on jobs "will likely be modest in comparison to the overall size of the state's economy," the analysis concluded.

Cogdill used the report Monday to blast the state's climate regulation. "It's time to put the brakes on this failed environmental policy," he said. "It's obvious that the quest for 'green' jobs will only take more cold hard green cash from Californians' wallets."

Industry groups have sharply criticized the air board's economic analysis of its mixture of regulations and incentives to slash the state's greenhouse gas emissions. The board found that on balance, the plan would create 120,000 jobs by 2020 (a 0.7% gain), boost the state's expected $2.6-trillion gross product by $4 billion and increase per capita income by $200.

The analysis, based on broad economic models, drew criticism from some academics, including Harvard economist Robert Stavins.

As a result, last May, Secretary of Environmental Protection Linda Adams appointed a 17-member committee to help revise the analysis. Their report is due this month.

Asked about the legislative analyst report, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger cited new solar facilities and biofuel plants in the state and said, "I'm absolutely convinced that AB 32 will create more jobs than kill jobs."

By pushing the state into renewable energy, AB 32 is expected to boost the clean-tech sector, which is particularly strong in California.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-climate-jobs10-2010mar10,0,2046614.story

Sundancefisher

03-10-2010, 10:34 AM

Inter-ministerial climate change panel on the anvil
Body to be formed in May, to collect inputs for India’s greenhouse gas inventory report to be submitted to the UN
Jacob P. Koshy

New Delhi: The government plans to create an inter-ministerial body to resolve contentious scientific issues on the impact of global warming on India.

This body will complement the efforts of the environment ministry, but concentrate on sorting out differences of opinion between experts on the actual impact of climate change on India’s monsoon, forests and farming systems, said an official familiar with the development, who did not want to be identified.

This is critical because such differences could weaken India’s position in global climate change talks.

A recent controversy surrounding the melting Himalayan glaciers saw R.K. Pachauri, an adviser to the Prime Minister on climate change, and chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), publicly lock horns with environment minister Jairam Ramesh.

“This body will see that whatever input we present internationally will be unanimous,” the official added.

The inter-ministerial group will be coordinated by the climate change division at the department of science and technology. This division was the result of India’s eight-point national action plan on climate change, directed by the Prime Minister, and is expected to fund and assess research that will constitute strategic knowledge on climate change.

Among the tasks of the group that is likely to come into being this May is the collation of scientific inputs for India’s periodic greenhouse gas inventory report that is to be submitted to the United Nations.

India has only made one such submission, in 1994, and several organizations are working on the second, which is due later this decade.

A second official familiar with the creation of the group and who too declined to be identified agreed that it could “avoid situations such as the IPCC controversy”.

A draft of IPCC’s report, published in 2007 and circulated to governments across the world, said the total area of Himalayan glaciers would shrink from the present 500,000 sq. km to 100,000 sq. km by the 2035. IPCC retracted this statement subsequently. However, Pachauri was hard-pressed, at least for a while, to defend the very scientific basis of climate change.

It didn’t help that Ramesh was critical of IPCC. “My problem was...with the alarmist position of the IPCC,” Ramesh had said at the time of the glacier controversy. “Secondly, the report made sweeping statements, which were not backed by scientific facts.”

India shifted its stance on climate change policy—from refusing to take on any emission reduction measures to accepting caps on the intensity of its emissions—within a calendar year, dividing policymakers in government. Experts say deeper divisions were expected to emerge in the future, which in turn could affect policy.

“The policy only comes in after scientific consensus. The big debates of the future will concentrate on the regional impact of climate change on different parts of the country and that would be even more fractious, simply because more people are going to be studying climate change impacts using all kinds of models,” said K. Krishna Kumar of the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, Pune, and a contributor to IPCC reports.

A government expert on the subject who is involved with climate change negotiations and who did not want to be identified said some of the differences could also arise from India’s evolving position: “From emissions intensity I wouldn’t be surprised if India takes on emission cuts. Then different states would haggle over their responsibilities and all this could have a bearing at international tables.”

http://www.livemint.com/2010/03/10215601/Interministerial-climate-chan.html

Okotokian

03-10-2010, 10:37 AM

SUNDANCE! STOP!

This isn't a discussion, it's just you posting one article after another in a frenzy, generally without comment. I highly doubt anyone is reading them anymore. Relax.. enjoy... talk. :wave:

Sundancefisher

03-10-2010, 10:45 AM

Canada's growing polar bear population 'becoming a problem,' locals say
January 8, 7:29 PM
Seminole County Environmental News Examiner
Kirk Myers

Polar bears, the lumbering carnivores of the arctic, continue to be the poster bear – er, child – for global warmers everywhere who are convinced the baby seal munchers are being driven to extinction by man’s irresponsible release of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Next to whales, the cuddly fur balls enjoy a special place on the “Animals to Love” list. Grown-ups adore them (provided it’s from a safe distance), and grade-school kids who can’t find Greenland or Manitoba on a map raid their penny jars to save them.

But are the denizens of the deep north facing extinction? Are they in desperate need of saving? It depends on who you ask.

According to the Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG), the polar bear population is on shaky ground – actually, ice – because of warmer temperatures and shrinking ice floe in the Arctic triggered by the favorite bad-guy of the green movement – anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming.

In a news release issued after its conference last July, the PBSG concluded that only one of 19 total polar bear subpopulations is currently increasing, three are stable and eight are declining. Data was insufficient to determine numbers for the remaining seven subpopulations. The group estimated that the total number of polar bears is somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000. (Estimates of the population during the 1950s and 1960s, before harvest quotas were enacted, range from 5,000 to 10,000.)

However, the PBSG quickly acknowledged that “the mixed quality of information on the different subpopulations means there is much room for error in establishing” the numbers, and “the potential for error, given the ongoing and projected changes in habitats and other potential stresses, is cause for concern.”

Despite those problems, the PBSG said it is optimistic that “humans can mitigate the effects of global warming and other threats to the polar bears.”

Not so fast. According to a U.S. Senate and Public Works Committee report, the “alarm about the future of polar bear decline is based on speculative computer model predictions many decades in the future. Those predictions are being “challenged by scientists and forecasting experts,” said the report.

Those challenges, supported by facts on the ground, including observations from Inuit hunters in the region, haven’t stopped climate fear-mongers at the U.S. Geological Survey from proclaiming that future sea ice conditions “will result in the loss of approximately two-thirds of the world’s current polar bear population by the mid 21st century.”

Such sky-is-falling rhetoric brings smiles to the Inuit population of Canada’s Nunavut Territory. They, too, know how to count, and they claim the bear population is stable or on the rise in their own backyard. Polar bears may be on the decline in some areas, but during their frequent visits to Inuit towns and outposts they rarely decline an easy meal from the local dump or a poorly secured garbage can.

Harry Flaherty, chair of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board in the capital of Iqaluit, says the polar bear population in the region, along the Davis Strait, has doubled during the past 10 years. He questions the official figures, which are based to a large extent on helicopter surveys.

“Scientists do a quick study one to two weeks in a helicopter, and don’t see all the polar bears. We’re getting totally different stories [about the bear numbers] on a daily basis from hunters and harvesters on the ground,” he says.

Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a biologist who has been researching polar bear populations in Canada’s Nunavut Territory for 35 years, seems to agree. “The study estimates from the Iqaluit area agree with those of local hunters, although the accuracy of the counts is doubtful in some areas,” he says.

Gabriel Nirlungayuk, director of wildlife for Nunavut Tuungavik Inc., is another doubter who questions the accuracy of helicopter surveys. “Helicopters have many limitations, including fuel capacity. They can’t go far out into the open water,” he says. But hunters crisscrossing the area by dog team, snowmobile or boat “are seeing polar bears where scientists and helicopters are not traveling.”

Forty years ago, old-timers living in the area around Hudson Bay were lucky to see a polar bear, Nirlungayuk says. “Now there are bears living as far south as James Bay.”

The growing population has become “a real problem,” especially over the last 10 years, he says. During the summer and fall, families enjoying outdoor activities must be on the look-out for bears. Many locals invite along other hunters for protection.

Last year, in Pelly Bay, all the bears that were captured were caught in town, Nirlungayuk says. “You now have polar bears coming into towns, getting into cabins, breaking property and just creating havoc for people up here,” he says.

In the Western Hudson Bay area, where harvest quotas were reduced by 80 percent four years ago, communities are complaining about the number of polar bears. “Now people can look out the window and see as many as 20 polar bears at the ice-flow edge,” Flaherty says.

During a public hearing last September focusing on the polar bear population in the Baffin Bay region, hunters reported more sightings of females with three cubs. The normal litter is one or two. Flaherty, himself a serious hunter, says the abundant food supply – primarily baby ring seals – in the area is responsible for the bigger litters.

The on-the-ground reports, if accurate, seem to contradict the official story of the beleaguered polar bear. According to the standard theory, warmer temperatures (caused by human CO2 emissions) are shrinking the ice floe, the polar bear’s main hunting ground, forcing populations to compete for a diminishing food supply. Warmer temperatures also are to blame for the loss of thicker “multi-year ice.”

Flaherty and many others disagree with the official story. “We are aware there are changes in the weather, but it is not affecting the daily life of the animals,” he says. “Polar bears hunt in the floe-edge areas, on newly formed ice, and in the fiords in search of baby seals. They don’t hunt in the glaciers [areas of multi-year ice].

“We’re not seeing negative effects on the polar bear population from so-called climate change and receding ice,” he says. He is convinced that some scientists are deliberately “using the polar bear issue to scare people” about global warming, a view widely shared by many Nunavut locals.

It has warmed in the region and, as Taylor confirms, the summer sea-ice boundary has been slowly contracting for the last 30 years and experienced a big decline in 2007 – an event that was widely reported as evidence of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming.

However, the shrinking sea ice does not affect polar bear numbers uniformly, he emphasizes. “Even in adjacent sub-populations, the impact may vary,” he says. “Every population is ecologically different. Some populations may actually benefit from less sea ice.”

Taylor downplays the theory that CO2 is the culprit responsible for warmer Arctic temperatures. Other factors, including wind-driven ice movement, shifting ocean currents, reduced albedo effect (less snow-cover resulting in less heat reflection) and increased water vapor (the major greenhouse gas) from a growing expanse of ice-free water, leading to warmer air temperatures, may be influencing the local climate, he says.

“Arctic warming is real, but just because it’s warmer doesn’t mean it’s caused by carbon dioxide. I don’t think CO2 is the main factor causing it.”

He notes that the current model forecasts, which show elevated CO2 levels triggering global temperature increases, don’t agree with the contemporary temperature record. “When predictions don’t match the observations, scientists should say ‘there is something wrong here.’”

The IPCC models, he claims, are “multiplying the effect of CO2 to obtain the temperature increases they predict,” a criticism shared by others in the scientific community who have openly accused modelers of data manipulation.

“The idea that these models can make predictions 50 to 100 years into the future seems, frankly, absurd to me.”

Both Nirlungayuk and Flaherty ridicule media claims that the polar bear is threatened or on the verge of extinction.

“Polar bears are very intelligent . . . they have adapted through many climate changes for thousands of years. They are not going to wait around for the ice to freeze to start hunting. They live on more than just seals,” says Nirlungayuk.

Adds Flaherty: “At the end of the day, the King of the North will always be here. When we hear that polar bears are headed towards extinction, we just kind of smile at ourselves.”

http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2010m1d8-Canadas-growing-polar-bear-population-becoming-a-problem-locals-say

Sundancefisher

03-10-2010, 11:03 AM

This isn't a discussion, it's just you posting one article after another in a frenzy, generally without comment. I highly doubt anyone is reading them anymore. Relax.. enjoy... talk. :wave:

Actually...a number of people are saying they appreciate the summary...easy to find...someone else pulling it all together. I sometimes add a little of my own thoughts but only if it is really needed. I like people to read for themselves and get their own impression of the topic. Without us thinking for ourselves...we are ultimately letting others run our lives and control our future. In particular...this global warming topic is highly important to everyone whether it proves true or false. Therefore it stands to reason you should care about these articles in order to speak fairly on the topic as it evolves.

That being said I respect your right to not read the newest articles that are coming out.

I am also paying attention to whether anyone other than me is reading.:lol::lol:

If no one else is opening and reading...then I will stop. There...that is your goal. PM everyone to stop reading :evilgrin:

Anyways...I am not hurting anyone by pulling this stuff together. It is actually interesting watching how this is unfolding. I am anticipating once the climategate reports are out and the UN review is finished...we will be past this phase.

Still...all those problems I feel seem to have increased the openness of the debate and removed some of the fanatical and ideological bias and power that really has controlled this topic to date.

Cheers and happy reading.

Sun

P.S. 2,532 people have viewed this topic... 145 posts (of which some :tongue2: are mine ;))

Okotokian

03-10-2010, 11:07 AM

Actually...a number of people are saying they appreciate the summary...easy to find...someone else pulling it all together. I sometimes add a little of my own thoughts but only if it is really needed. I like people to read for themselves and get their own impression of the topic. Without us thinking for ourselves...we are ultimately letting others run our lives and control our future. In particular...this global warming topic is highly important to everyone whether it proves true or false. Therefore it stands to reason you should care about these articles in order to speak fairly on the topic as it evolves.

That being said I respect your right to not read the newest articles that are coming out.

I am also paying attention to whether anyone other than me is reading.:lol::lol:

If no one else is opening and reading...then I will stop. There...that is your goal. PM everyone to stop reading :evilgrin:

Anyways...I am not hurting anyone by pulling this stuff together. It is actually interesting watching how this is unfolding. I am anticipating once the climategate reports are out and the UN review is finished...we will be past this phase.

Still...all those problems I feel seem to have increased the openness of the debate and removed some of the fanatical and ideological bias and power that really has controlled this topic to date.

Cheers and happy reading.

Sun

P.S. 2,532 people have viewed this topic... 145 posts (of which some :tongue2: are mine ;))

OK, fair enough. I was just worried about you, thought perhaps you were off your meds. Continue. :D

Sundancefisher

03-10-2010, 11:47 AM

OK, fair enough. I was just worried about you, thought perhaps you were off your meds. Continue. :D

LOL.

Needs some meds cause of a wicked sore throat today...but other than that...the level of crazy has not changed materially in years :lol:

Sundancefisher

03-12-2010, 11:20 AM

Friday, 12 March 2010

Climate change 'makes birds shrink' in North America
By Matt Walker
Editor, Earth News

Songbirds in the US are getting smaller, and climate change is suspected as the cause.

A study of almost half a million birds, belonging to over 100 species, shows that many are gradually becoming lighter and growing shorter wings.

This shrinkage has occurred within just half a century, with the birds thought to be evolving into a smaller size in response to warmer temperatures.

However, there is little evidence that the change is harmful to the birds.

Details of the discovery are published in the journal Oikos.

In biology, there is a general rule of thumb that animals tend to become smaller in warmer climates: an idea known as Bergman's Rule.

Usually this trend can be seen among animal species that live over a range of latitude or altitude, with individuals living at more northern latitudes or higher up cooler mountains being slightly larger than those below, for example.

Quite why this happens is not clear, but it prompted one group of scientists to ask the question: would animals respond in the same way to climate change?

To find out, Dr Josh Van Buskirk of the University of Zurich, Switzerland and colleagues Mr Robert Mulvihill and Mr Robert Leberman of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Rector, Pennsylvania, US decided to evaluate the sizes of hundreds of thousands of birds that pass through the Carnegie Museum's Powdermill ringing station, also in Pennsylvania.

They examined the records of 486,000 individual birds that had been caught and measured at the ringing station from 1961 to 2007.

These birds belonged to 102 species, arriving over different seasons. Each was weighed. It also had the length of its wings measured, recorded as wing cord length, or the distance between the bird's wrist to the tip of the longest primary feather.

Their sample included local resident bird species, overwintering species, and even long distance migrants arriving from the Neotropics.

What they found was striking.

Of 83 species caught during spring migration, 60 have become smaller over the 46 year study period, weighing less and having shorter wings.

Of the 75 species migrating in autumn, 66 have become smaller.

In summer, 51 of 65 breeding species have similarly reduced in size, as have 20 out of 26 wintering species.

The differences in size are not big.

"On average, the decline in mass of spring migrants over the 46 year study was just 1.3%," says Dr Buskirk.

"For a 10g warbler that's a loss of just 130mg."

But some species are losing more weight.

For example, the rose-breasted grosbeak has declined in mass by about 4%, while the Kentucky warbler has dropped 3.3% in weight and the scarlet tanager 2.3%.

The trend is particularly noticeable among those birds that winter in the New World tropics of the Caribbean, Central America and South America.

"The headline finding is that the body sizes of many species of North American birds, mostly songbirds, are gradually becoming smaller," says Dr Buskirk.

However, their populations are not dwindling.

"So many of these species are apparently doing just fine, but the individual birds are becoming gradually smaller nonetheless," says Dr Buskirk.

That suggests that bird species in North America are obeying Berman's rule, by evolving into a smaller size as temperatures increase.

Though this change appears quick, it has taken place over at least 20 generations of birds.

"There are plenty examples of rapid contemporary evolution over much shorter time periods," says Dr Buskirk.

Whether the trend will cause the birds any long-term consequences is unclear.

"In one obvious sense, the consequences are positive," says Dr Buskirk.

"That is, as temperatures become warmer, the optimal body size is becoming smaller."

However, even though the species appear to be adapting to the new climatic conditions, it could still be that their average "fitness" in evolutionary terms, is going down.

"Evidence from other studies is that some species will benefit and others will be harmed, and it's not always the species we like that will be harmed," says Dr Buskirk.

The jury is still out as to why any species responds to warmer temperatures by becoming smaller.

Originally, biologists proposed that having a larger body surface to volume might help in warmer climates.

But more recent ideas suggest that animals might actually be responding instead to something else that correlates with temperature, such as the availability of food, or metabolic rate.

"It looks like it might take a while before we know," says Dr Buskirk.

His team says much more data is now needed to confirm this trend and to see if it is happening in animals other than birds.

For example, it took an avalanche of data before people became convinced that climate change is already altering when birds start migrating.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8560000/8560694.stm

Sundancefisher

03-12-2010, 10:41 PM

Terence Corcoran: Remember Amazongate?
Posted: March 12, 2010, 7:55 PM by NP Editor
Terence Corcoran, IPCC, climate change

New research shows no evidence of Amazon devastation

By Terence Corcoran

Climate scientists attached to the rickety Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change structure raise two key interchangeable arguments in their defense. The first is to deny that anything of significance has been found in the various IPCC scandals. Climategate? Nothing there but a few emails that display intemperate behaviour and typical charmless chat among scientists doing their jobs.

“Scientists are not public relations experts,” say the apologists. Glaciergate and the melting Himalayan ice? Insignificant — barely a footnote in the official IPCC reports, and a minor mistake in any case; there’s nothing here to cast doubt on the thousands of pages of good work by thousands of scientists. “Regrettably, there were a very small number of errors,” said UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Wednesday after announcing the appointment of a review panel to investigate those tiny little errors, produce a report and move on, preferably by August before the next round of panic-ridden climate talks.

The second official line of defense is to attempt to deny the very existence of any mistakes, errors or butchered science. Denial, in fact, is often the first strategy deployed when any criticism surfaces. Then, if the story of scientific error is proven true, the mistakes are then dismissed and trivialized as of no consequence.

If this strategy of denial, diminishment, trivialization and dismissal succeeds it will only be because most people will not pay close enough attention to the issues. The Climategate emails, thousands of exchanges among scientists working on temperature records and forecasts, are dense and unintelligible to all but the most intrepid and diligent. You may even have to be half crazy to try to work through the emails and piece together the story lines and threads.

One of the Climategate story lines involves attempts by the biggest names in climate science, Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, and Michael Mann, of Pennsylvanian State University, to suppress revelations of scientific fraud in production of key temperature data. Using libel threats, even though they knew the fraud charge might be true, they tried to intimidate journal editors and attempted to conceal the fraud. That story is told in FP Comment by Benny Peiser, one of the editors who in 2007 engaged Mr. Jones in the fraud debate. Readers can decided for themselves on the significance of this Climategate episode and whether it is just a trivial anecdote.

Another deny-and-trivialize science issue is Amazongate. In January, Daily Telegraph writer James Delingpole described how a key alarmist section of the IPPC’s 2007 science report was another bit of dubious research from the World Wildlife Fund. It claimed that “Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation.” The expert citation for this was a bit of non-peer-reviewed research by WWF activists.

The Sunday Times of London called the IPCC Amazon statement to be a “bogus rainforest claim.” Soon, however, the denial machine swung into action. The Times will be in hot water over this, they said. While the original IPCC report was based on WWF research, there was other science that supported the idea that the Amazon could be decimated by climate change.

The author of that other science, Daniel Nepstad, of the Woods Hole Research Center, said that while the WWF version of his paper got things wrong, the IPCC was correct — up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reduction in the amount of rainfall. Mr. Nepstad based his conclusion on assessments of the Amazon rainforest’s behaviour during the 1998 El Nino period. Other research in 2004 and 2007 also seemed to support the idea that the Amazon would be decimated by global warming.

But this week new research supports the original Amazongate version of the science. The Amazon may not be at risk from climate change. Researchers at Boston University, headed by Ranga B. Myneni, professor of geography and environment, found that satellite readings used by other scientists were based on contaminated data. In a paper published by Geophysical Research Letters, Prof. Myneni and associates say they found no evidence that the Amazon suffers extreme tree mortality, excessive forest greening or other trauma under extreme climate conditions.

The Myneni paper examined the impact on the Amazon of a major 2005 drought. Some scientists have argued that the 2005 drought caused significant rainforest disturbances. But Prof. Myneni says that science is based on satellite data that cannot be reproduced because much of it is “atmosphere corrupted.” Once the corrupted data is removed, a new assessment is possible, The Boston research shows that much of the speculation around the Amazon either greening up or browning under extreme conditions to be false. During the 2005 drought, Prof. Myneni reports, the Amazon behaved no differently than it did during 2003 and 2004, when there was no drought.

Prof. Myneni supports the basic IPCC climate science theory. But he said in an interview yesterday that the IPCC was being “alarmist” when it took the WWF research and produced a report that projected that 40% of the Amazon could be devastated and reformed by even a slight reduction in rainfall.

As it turns out, he says, the experience of 2005 shows that there is no evidence for the WWF claim and the evidence used in later research is faulty.
None of this resolves the Amazongate issue. What it does show, however, is what all the of the IPCC science problems show: The science isn’t settled.

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/12/terence-corcoran-remember-amazongate.aspx

Got Juice?

03-13-2010, 12:00 AM

The best balanced video I have found on the topic.

here is the first one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA&feature=PlayList&p=B89D8A50AC4D20BE&index=0

Sundancefisher

03-15-2010, 04:30 PM

You can so easily tell what ideology these people fall under. Is it too critical to say a bunch of these left wing green nut jobs are communists? What is the definition of communism.

"Communism is a social structure in which, theoretically, classes are abolished and property is commonly controlled, as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society.[1]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

To say we should advocate making a business stop being an business and go into covering the Sahara with mirrors (without any regard to when the WWF stops construction of that project due to the immeasurable harm to the natural ecosystem including plants, animals and insects) without any care nor mention of the fact said company would go bankrupt in the process or be killed in tribal fights or have Amnesty International protesting the backing of dictatorships...

Please give us all a break. 250 billion is absolutely nothing in the scheme of the 100 years they figure it will take to develop this resource. McDonald's restaurants alone are slated to hit the $5 billion in sales soon. That is just one fast food restaurant. When talking about a large world class resource there will be costs to develop but they are also creating wealth.

If these people are so sure of their intensions then they should stop all their use of fossil fuels...completely...end of story. Prove it is cheap and easy to do. They make a mockery of ideology when they demand everyone do as they are told yet shoot around the world in jets, rent cars where they travel, eat at nice restaurant, wear trendy cloths etc. Advocates of this green communist revolution are advocating the transfer of wealth from "rich" nations to "poor" nations. That was made clear at Copenhaugen.

It all comes down to communism. Maybe guised as green communism but still communism all the same.

This is our ideology...you must live it...don't second guess us...and yes...we will still have fun while you suffer cause we are in power here to help run your lives. (p.s. Pleae don't check our communist data to closely)

What a crock.

Sun

************************************************** ************************************
Money spent on tar sands projects could decarbonise western economies• Production from tar sands will rise to 4m barrels a day by 2025

Terry Macalister
The Guardian, Monday 15 March 2010

The £250bn cost of developing Canada's controversial tar sands between now and 2025 could be used to decarbonise the western economy by funding ambitious solar power schemes in the Sahara or a European wide shift to electric vehicles, according to a new report released today.

The same amount of investment would also help the world to hit half of the Millenium Development Goals in the 50 least-developed countries, says the research from The Co-operative and conservation group, WWF, which is released to coincide with a new film, Dirty Oil, being premiered in 25 cinemas around the UK today. It is a hard-hitting documentary narrated by Canadian actor, Neve Campbell.

The moves are all part of a concerted effort to put shareholder and public pressure on BP and Shell which are at the forefront of extracting oil from the carbon-intensive tar sands of Alberta.

The Co-op claims its task has gained urgency by BP unveiling plans last week to speed up new tar sands projects through a tie-up with Devon Energy.

"The sums of money being invested in tar sands developments are enormous and difficult for the average person to grasp," says Paul Monaghan, head of social goals at the Co-op.

"This report (The Opportunity of the Tar Sands) puts things into perspective and demonstrates not only the scale of the problem, which could take us to the brink of runaway climate change, but also the opportunity being lost. It is literally a matter of life and death that these enormous oil titans are re-steered to much more sustainable paths," he adds.

The production of tar sands is estimated by critics to emit three times more greenhouse gases than conventional oil production. It is estimated that tar sands production will increase from its 1.3m barrels a day to at least 4m barrels by 2025.

A resolution has been put down by the Co-op and other shareholders to be taken at the BP annual general meeting next month alongside a similar one for Shell asking for a review of the economics and environmental impact of tar sands.

The Co-op and WWF say the combined cost of all tar sands – £250bn – could be used for clean power projects such as the Desertec scheme linking solar plants in North Africa to a "supergrid" which could produce 15% of Europe's electricity by 2050.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/15/bp-shell-tar-sands-green-energy

Sundancefisher

03-16-2010, 07:40 AM

Trying to artificially make the Earth colder can have way worse consequences to humanity than warmer:huh:. Just the shear amount of energy that will need to be expended to keep people warm will by itself create a nasty feedback loop.

At the same time...man if they can increase productivity of the oceans and improve fishing...gezz...I am torn on this one.

:evilgrin:

************************************************** ******

Tuesday, 16 March 2010

Climate 'fix' could poison sea life
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News

Fertilising the oceans with iron to absorb carbon dioxide could increase concentrations of a chemical that can kill marine mammals, a study has found.

Iron stimulates growth of marine algae that absorb CO2 from the air, and has been touted as a "climate fix".

Now researchers have shown that the algae increase production of a nerve poison that can kill mammals and birds.

Writing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they say this raises "serious concern" over the idea.

The toxin - domoic acid - first came to notice in the late 1980s as the cause of amnesiac shellfish poisoning.

It is produced by algae of the genus Pseudonitzschia, with concentrations rising rapidly when the algae "bloom".

Now, its presence in seawater often requires the suspension of shellfishing operations, and is regularly implicated in deaths of animals such as sealions.

Domoic acid poisoning may also lie behind a 1961 incident in which flocks of seabirds appeared to attack the Californian town of Capitola - an event believed to have shaped Alfred Hitchcock's interpretation of Daphne du Maurier's The Birds in his 1963 thriller.

Carbon focus

Over the last decade, about 10 research projects have investigated iron fertilisation, with mixed results.

But only two of them measured domoic acid production, and only then as an afterthought, explained William Cochlan from San Francisco State University, a scientist on the new project.

"We had a number of major aims in this work; but one of them was to ask 'do you normally find the species of algae that produce domoic acid, are they producing domoic acid, and will production be enhanced by iron?'," he said.

In studies conducted around Ocean Station Papa, a research platform moored in the north-eastern Pacific Ocean, the answers to all three questions turned out to be "yes".

Pseudonitzschia algae were present naturally; they were producing domoic acid, and experiments showed that production increased during fertilisation with iron and copper.

Also, under iron-rich conditions, the Pseudonitzschia algae bloomed at a rate faster than other types.

The levels of domoic acid in iron-enriched water samples were of the same order as those known to cause poisoning in mammals in coastal waters.

Ailsa Hall, deputy director of the Sea Mammal Research Institute at St Andrews University in Scotland, said that domoic acid poisoning was already becoming a regular occurrence in some parts of the world.

"Ever since 1998 we've seen regular episodes of mass mortality and seizures in sea lions on the US west coast," she said.

The toxin accumulates in animals such as fish that are themselves immune.

"We've seen it in seals, pelicans and harbour porpoises; it does depend on how much they eat, but if a sea lion or a pelican eats its way through a school of contaminated anchovies, then that would be enough," Dr Hall told BBC News.

Domoic acid's effect on other species was unknown, she said, but it would be reasonable to think it would also affect marine mammals such as whales.

Whether iron fertilisation ever will be deployed as a "climate fix" is unclear.

The last major investigation - last year's Lohafex expedition - found that despite depositing six tonnes of iron in the Southern Ocean, little extra CO2 was drawn from the atmosphere.

Nevertheless, one company - Climos - aims eventually to deploy the technique on a commercial basis.

A Climos spokesman agreed that further research on domoic acid production was needed.

"Moving forward, we need to understand exactly how deep-ocean phytoplankton respond to iron, be it naturally or artificially supplied; whether and in what situations domoic acid is produced, and how the ecosystem is or is not already adapted to this," he said.

For William Cochlan's team, the potential impact on sea life is something that regulators and scientists must take into account when deciding whether to allow further studies or deployment.

"We saw some literature going around with claims like 'there is no indication of toxicity to sea life' - well, if you don't measure it, of course there's no indication, and we have to keep that kind of legalese out of science," he said.

"If the end goal is to use it to fight climate warming, then we have to understand the consequences for marine life."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8569351.stm

Sundancefisher

03-22-2010, 12:42 PM

Wind contributing to Arctic sea ice loss, study findsNew research does not question climate change is also melting ice in the Arctic, but finds wind patterns explain steep decline

David Adam, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Monday 22 March 2010 07.00 GMT

Much of the record breaking loss of ice in the Arctic ocean in recent years is down to the region's swirling winds and is not a direct result of global warming, a new study reveals.

Ice blown out of the region by Arctic winds can explain around one-third of the steep downward trend in sea ice extent in the region since 1979, the scientists say.

The study does not question that global warming is also melting ice in the Arctic, but it could raise doubts about high-profile claims that the region has passed a climate "tipping point" that could see ice loss sharply accelerate in coming years.

The new findings also help to explain the massive loss of Arctic ice seen in the summers of 2007-08, which prompted suggestions that the summertime Arctic Ocean could be ice-free withing a decade. About half of the variation in maximum ice loss each September is down to changes in wind patterns, the study says.

Masayo Ogi, a scientist with the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology in Yokohama, and her colleagues, looked at records of how winds have behaved across the Arctic since satellite measurements of ice extent there began in 1979.

They found that changes in wind patterns, such as summertime winds that blow clockwise around the Beaufort Sea, seemed to coincide with years where sea ice loss was highest.

Writing in a paper to be published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, the scientists suggest these winds have blown large amounts of Arctic ice south through the Fram Strait, which passes between Greenland and the Norwegian islands of Svalbard, and leads to the warmer waters of the north Atlantic. These winds have increased recently, which could help explain the apparent acceleration in ice loss.

"Wind-induced, year-to-year differences in the rate of flow of ice toward and through Fram Strait play an important role in modulating September sea ice extent on a year-to-year basis," the scientists say. "A trend toward an increased wind-induced rate of flow has contributed to the decline in the areal coverage of Arctic summer sea ice."

Ogi said this was the first time the Arctic winds have been analysed in such a way.

"Both winter and summer winds could blow ice out of the Arctic [through] the Fram Strait during 1979-2009," she said.

A number of other factors were also responsible for ice loss, including warming of the air and ocean, she added.

According to the National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic sea ice "is in a state of ongoing decline". Since 1979, the ice has shrunk by about 10% a decade, or 28,000 square miles each year. The ice reaches its minimum extent each September, when it begins to reform as the freezing Arctic winter takes hold.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/22/wind-sea-ice-loss-arctic

Sundancefisher

03-22-2010, 02:16 PM

All this talk about "predicting" starvation from higher CO2...predicting floods and droughts etc...consider this:

90 million years ago we had a way higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. The Earth's response? Grow big everything. Big trees and super giant dinosaurs. There is no doubt in my mind...to some degree...the will use the CO2 like it always does. To grow plants to in turn feed animals. As we are animals...this bodes well to an increased food supply. Those higher CO2 levels in the past did not kill the dinosaurs...but rather made everything stronger with more food.

IMHO

Cheers

Sun

*********************************
Cleaning The Atmosphere Of Carbon: African Forests Out Of Balance
ScienceDaily (Mar. 2, 2009)

Tropical forests hold more living biomass than any other terrestrial ecosystem. A new report in the journal Nature by Lewis et al. shows that not only do trees in intact African tropical forests hold a lot of carbon, they hold more carbon now than they did 40 years ago--a hopeful sign that tropical forests could help to mitigate global warming.

In a companion article, Helene Muller-Landau, staff scientist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, says that understanding the causes of this African forest carbon sink and projecting its future is anything but straightforward.

Growing trees absorb carbon. Dead, decomposing trees release carbon. Researchers expect growth and death to approximately balance each other out in mature, undisturbed forests, and thus for total tree carbon stocks, the carbon held by the trees, to remain approximately constant. Yet Lewis and colleagues discovered that on average each hectare (100 x 100 meters, or 2.2 acres) of apparently mature, undisturbed African forest was increasing in tree carbon stocks by an amount equal to the weight of a small car each year. Previous studies have shown that Amazonian forests also take up carbon, although at somewhat lower rates.

"If you assume that these forests should be in equilibrium, then the best way to explain why trees are growing bigger is anthropogenic global change – the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could essentially be acting as fertilizer." says Muller-Landau, "But it's also possible that tropical forests are still growing back following past clearing or fire or other disturbance. Given increasing evidence that tropical forests have a long history of human occupation, recovery from past disturbance is almost certainly part of the reason these forests are taking up carbon today."

Muller-Landau, who directs a project to monitor carbon budgets in forest study sites worldwide as part of the Smithsonian's Center for Tropical Forest Science and the HSBC Climate Partnership, advises that this newfound sink shouldn't be taken for granted, or presumed to continue indefinitely. "While we still can't explain exactly what is behind this carbon sink, one thing we know for sure is that it can't be a sink forever. Trees and forests just can't keep getting bigger. Tropical forests are buying us a bit more time right now, but we can't count on them to continue to offset our carbon emissions in the future."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090219105322.htm

Sundancefisher

03-22-2010, 06:34 PM

Eating less meat won’t curb climate change: study

Agence France-Presse
Published: Monday, March 22, 2010

A new study says eating less meat will not help curb climate change

WASHINGTON - Eating less meat will not reduce global warming, and reports that claim it will are distracting society from finding real ways to beat climate change, a leading air quality expert said on Monday.

"We certainly can reduce our greenhouse gas production, but not by consuming less meat and milk," Frank Mitloehner, an air quality expert at the University of California-Davis, said as he presented a report on meat-eating and climate change at a conference of the American Chemical Society in California.

Blaming cows and pigs for climate change is scientifically inaccurate, said Mr. Mitloehner, dismissing several reports, including one issued in 2006 by the United Nations, which he said overstate the role that livestock play in global warming.

The UN report "Livestock's Long Shadow," which said livestock cause more anthropogenic greenhouse gases than all global transportation combined, merely distract from the real issues involved in climate change and are a distraction in the quest for true solutions to global warming, Mr. Mitloehner said.

The notion that eating less meat will help to combat climate change has spawned campaigns for "meatless Mondays" and a European campaign launched late last year, called "Less Meat Less Heat."

Former Beatle Paul McCartney, one of the world's best-known vegetarians, was a driving force behind "Less Meat Less Heat."

"[Mr.] McCartney and others seem to be well-intentioned but not well-schooled in the complex relationships among human activities, animal digestion, food production and atmospheric chemistry," Mr. Mitloehner said.

"Smarter animal farming, not less farming, will equal less heat," Mr. Mitloehner said.

"Producing less meat and milk will only mean more hunger in poor countries."

Developing countries "should adopt more efficient, Western-style farming practices, to make more food with less greenhouse gas production," Mr. Mitloehner added.

Rather than focusing on producing and eating less meat, Mr. Mitloehner said developed countries "should focus on cutting our use of oil and coal for electricity, heating and vehicle fuels."

In the United States, transportation creates an estimated 26% of all greenhouse gas emissions, whereas raising cattle and pigs for food accounts for about 3%, he said.

The UN report, issued in 2006, said global livestock rearing was responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions measured in carbon dioxide equivalents. The UN report said that was more than the greenhouse gases produced by transport.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2712011

Sundancefisher

03-24-2010, 12:04 PM

UN body to look at meat and climate link
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News

Livestock's Long Shadow calculated meat-related emissions from field to abattoir

UN specialists are to look again at the contribution of meat production to climate change, after claims that an earlier report exaggerated the link.

A 2006 report concluded meat production was responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions - more than transport.

The report has been cited by people campaigning for a more vegetable-based diet, including Sir Paul McCartney.

But a new analysis, presented at a major US science meeting, says the transport comparison was flawed.

Sir Paul was one of the figures launching a campaign late last year centred on the slogan "Less meat = less heat".

But curbing meat production and consumption would be less beneficial for the climate than has been claimed, said Frank Mitloehner from the University of California at Davis (UCD).

"Smarter animal farming, not less farming, will equal less heat," he told delegates to the American Chemical Society (ACS) meeting in San Francisco.

"Producing less meat and milk will only mean more hunger in poor countries."

Leading figures in the climate change establishment, such as Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chairman Rajendra Pachauri and Lord (Nicholas) Stern, have also quoted the 18% figure as a reason why people should consider eating less meat.

Apples and pears

The 2006 report - Livestock's Long Shadow, published by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) - reached the figure by totting up all greenhouse-gas emissions associated with meat production from farm to table, including fertiliser production, land clearance, methane emissions from the animals' digestion, and vehicle use on farms.

But Dr Mitloehner pointed out that the authors had not calculated transport emissions in the same way, instead just using the IPCC's figure, which only included fossil fuel burning.

"This lopsided 'analysis' is a classical apples-and-oranges analogy that truly confused the issue," he said.

One of the authors of Livestock's Long Shadow, FAO livestock policy officer Pierre Gerber, told BBC News he accepted Dr Mitloehner's criticism.

"I must say honestly that he has a point - we factored in everything for meat emissions, and we didn't do the same thing with transport, we just used the figure from the IPCC," he said.

"But on the rest of the report, I don't think it was really challenged."

FAO is now working on a much more comprehensive analysis of emissions from food production, he said.

It should be complete by the end of the year, and should allow comparisons between diets, including meat and those that are exclusively vegetarian.

Different pies

Organisations use different methods for apportioning emissions between sectors of the economy.

In an attempt to capture everything associated with meat production, the FAO team included contributions, for example, from transport and deforestation.

By comparison, the IPCC's methodology collects all emissions from deforestation into a separate pool, whether the trees are removed for farming or for some other reason; and does the same thing for transport.

This is one of the reasons why the 18% figure appears remarkably high to some observers.

The majority of the meat-related emissions come from land clearance and from methane emissions associated with the animals' digestion.

Other academics have also argued that meat is a necessary source of protein in some societies with small food resources, and that in the drylands of East Africa or around the Arctic where crop plants cannot survive, a meat-based diet is the only option.

Dr Mitloehner contends that in developed societies such as the US - where transport emissions account for about 26% of the national total, compared with 3% for pig- and cattle-rearing - meat is the wrong target in efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8583308.stm

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/science/03/24/meat.industry.global.warming/?hpt=Sbin

Sundancefisher

03-24-2010, 06:22 PM

El Niño's Last Hurrah?

ScienceDaily (Mar. 24, 2010)
El Niño 2009-2010 just keeps hanging in there.

Recent sea-level height data from the NASA/European Ocean Surface Topography Mission/Jason-2 oceanography satellite show that a large-scale, sustained weakening of trade winds in the western and central equatorial Pacific during late-January through February has triggered yet another strong, eastward-moving wave of warm water, known as a Kelvin wave.

Now in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific, this warm wave appears as the large area of higher-than-normal sea surface heights (warmer-than-normal sea surface temperatures) between 150 degrees west and 100 degrees west longitude. A series of similar, weaker events that began in June 2009 initially triggered and has sustained the present El Niño condition.

JPL oceanographer Bill Patzert says it's too soon to know for sure, but he would not be surprised if this latest and largest Kelvin wave is the "last hurrah" for this long-lasting El Niño.

Patzert explained, "Since June 2009, this El Niño has waxed and waned, impacting many global weather events. I,and many other scientists, expect the current El Niño to leave the stage sometime soon. What comes next is not yet clear, but a return to El Niño's dry sibling, La Niña, is certainly a possibility, though by no means a certainty. We'll be monitoring conditions closely over the coming weeks and months."

An El Niño also causes unusual changes in atmospheric circulation and convection around the globe. JPL's Microwave Limb Sounder instrument on NASA's Aura spacecraft captured a large eastward shift of deep convection from the current El Niño, indicated by large amounts of cloud ice in the upper troposphere.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100324135708.htm

Sundancefisher

03-24-2010, 06:39 PM

People will read this and say wow...more proof. Yet my first thought is that the land in question could be sinking through compaction of fluvial sediment deposits or simple erosion from current and storms and human occupation. Seems like some people can show this story is bogus propaganda. I will be curiously watching to see if anyone comes out and get the counter argument published. I will have a contrary argument below this article.

*****************************************
Island claimed by India and Bangladesh sinks below waves

New Moore in the Sunderbans falls victim to rising sea levels caused by global warming

Associated Press
guardian.co.uk,
Wednesday 24 March 2010 14.01 GMT

Island claimed by India and Bangladesh sinks below waves

New Moore in the Sunderbans falls victim to rising sea levels caused by global warming

For nearly 30 years, India and Bangladesh have argued over control of a tiny rock island in the Bay of Bengal. Now rising sea levels have resolved the dispute for them: the island has gone.

New Moore island in the Sunderbans has been completely submerged, said oceanographer Sugata Hazra, a professor at Jadavpur University in Kolkata. Its disappearance has been confirmed by satellite imagery and sea patrols, he said.

"What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking has been resolved by global warming," said Hazra.

Scientists at the school of oceanographic studies at the university have noted an alarming increase in the rate at which sea levels have risen over the past decade in the Bay of Bengal.

Until 2000, the sea levels rose about 3mm (0.12 inches) a year, but over the last decade they have been rising about 5mm annually, he said. Another nearby island, Lohachara, was submerged in 1996, forcing its inhabitants to move to the mainland, while almost half the land of Ghoramara island was underwater, he said. At least 10 other islands in the area were at risk as well, Hazra added.

"We will have ever larger numbers of people displaced from the Sunderbans as more island areas come under water," he said.

Bangladesh, a low-lying delta nation of 150 million people, is one of the countries worst affected by global warming. Officials estimate 18% of Bangladesh's coastal area will be underwater and 20 million people will be displaced if sea levels rise one metre by 2050 as projected by some climate models.

India and Bangladesh both claimed the empty New Moore Island, which is about two miles long and 1.5 miles wide. Bangladesh referred to the island as South Talpatti.

There were no permanent structures on New Moore, but India sent some paramilitary soldiers to its rocky shores in 1981 to hoist its national flag.

The demarcation of the maritime boundary – and who controls the remaining islands – remains an open issue between the two south Asian neighbours, and the disappearance of the island does nothing to resolve it, said an official in India's foreign ministry, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to speak on international disputes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/cif-green/2010/mar/24/india-bangladesh-sea-levels

*************************************************
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100324100749AAsBDAL

Open Question

Do you want to know the truth about New Moore island and global warming?
.
You may have read about a small rock in the Sunderban Islands being submerged by rising sea levels caused by global warming.

Whilst the rock has gone, to say that it was global warming that did it is unscientific nonsense as even the global warming websites acknowledge: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/12/…

QUOTE -

--------------------------------------…
"So sea level rise was just one of the factors. And sea level rise can also be caused by land sinking as well as the ocean rising. I found a scientific paper on the topic by Gopinath and Seralathan in Environmental Geology. (Yes, the same journal that published Khilyuk and Chilingar's tripe.)

Gopinath and Seralathan studied Sagar island which is just 1 km from where Lohachara used to be, so their conclusions apply to Lohachara as well. They found that reduced flows in the river were causing sediments to be deposited further upstream instead of replacing erosion at Sagar island. Furthermore, the major cause of the relative sea level rise which made for more erosion, was land subsidence, not global warming.

So it is wrong to blame Global Warming for the disappearance of Lohachara island. This isn't much comfort for people living on the other islands in the Sundarbans, since Global Warmingis likely to produce significant sea level rises in the future and Lohachara demonstrates that these islands are vulnerable to small rises in sea level."
--------------------------------------…

- so even the warmist blogs aren't trying to claim this as a result of global warming, only the real extremists are still plugging away with that one.

Here's the Times of India - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/… - on the PREVIOUS island there lost to global warming, which is now emerging once more from the sea, proving that it is sediment and erosion not global warming.

QUOTE -

-----------------------------
KOLKATA: 2007. Kodak Theatre, Hollywood. The list of Oscar presenters includes Jack Nicholson, Meryl Streep, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jennifer Lopez. Instead of the usual million-dollar goodies, each of them receive a small glass model called the Lohachara sculpture after an island which "in December, 2006, became the first inhabited island to be lost to rising sea levels caused by global warming".

A little more than two years later, Lohachara island is emerging again. This was first noticed by Jadavpur University scientists in satellite images. This island in the western part of the Sunderbans it was claimed was the first inhabited one in the world to be inundated because of global warming. Along with this to go under water was the nearby island of Suparibhanga or Bedford, a land mass which was uninhabited, officially.

According to Tuhin Ghosh, senior lecturer, School of Oceanographic studies, JU, "Lohachara and Bedford were there in 1975 satellite data. In 1990 pictures, a small portion of Lohachara is visible. There's no sign of Bedford. In a 1995 satellite picture, Lohachara had vanished. But in satellite pictures of 2007, you can see Lohachara coming back... It's a revelation."

An on-the-spot survey showed that the vanished islands are indeed emerging. One can walk around on it during low tide and just before high tide, the land mass rises around three feet above the water.

The emergence of this island is such a new phenomenon that even many residents of Ghoramara don't know about its existence. "You will find nothing. Lohachara is not there. It has been eaten up by the river," says Arun Pramanik.

But hiring a trawler to around one kilometre south-west of Ghoramara gives a different picture. The island is there in front of one's eyes. Says boatman Mukunda Mondal (41), "Yes, the island is emerging. I have noticed it for the past one year. It's clearly visible in winter."

Judhisthir Bhuian, now a resident of Jibantala colony on the Sagar island, had his home on the Lohachara. He still goes back to the place where their house once stood. "A huge landmass is coming up, covering Lohachara and Bedford," he says.

According to Tuhin Ghosh, it is not unlikely. "The island can reappear because of different geomorphic reasons," says Ghosh, who has worked in the area for around nine years and done his PhD on the Ghoramara island, around a kilometre north of Lohachara. "
--------------------------------------…

Did you know the truth of the situation?

Sundancefisher

03-24-2010, 06:45 PM

Forests expert officially complains about 'distorted' Sunday Times article

Press Complaints Commission told that newspaper story gives impression that IPCC made false Amazon rainfall claim

David Adam, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk,
Wednesday 24 March 2010 14.28 GMT

Drought near Santarem in Brazil's Amazon state of Para

A small boat is trapped in a pond near Santarem, Brazil, after water levels of the Amazon river fell by some two metres. Photograph: Daniel Beltra/Greenpeace

A leading scientist has made an official complaint to the Press Complaints Commission over an "inaccurate, misleading and distorted" newspaper story about a supposed mistake made by the UN's panel on global warming.

Simon Lewis, an expert on tropical forests at the University of Leeds, says the story, published by the Sunday Times in January, is wrong and should be corrected.

He says the story is misleading because it gives the impression that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made a false claim in its 2007 report that reduced rainfall could wipe out up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest. The Sunday Times story was widely followed up across the world, and, in the wake of the discovery of a high-profile blunder by the IPCC over the likely melting of Himalayan glaciers, helped fuel claims that the IPCC was flawed and its conclusions unreliable.

Lewis said: "There is currently a war of disinformation about climate change-related science, and my complaint can hopefully let journalists in the front line of this war know that there are potential repercussions if they publish misleading stories. The public deserve careful and accurate science reporting."

The Sunday Times piece was originally headlined "UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim", though this was later changed on the website version. It said the 40% destruction figure was based on an "unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise".

The IPCC report attributed the claim to a report from campaign group WWF, which contained no reference to back the statement.

Lewis said he was contacted by the Sunday Times before the article was published and told them the IPCC's statement was "poorly written and bizarrely referenced, but basically correct". He added that "there is a wealth of scientific evidence suggesting that the Amazon is vulnerable to reductions in rainfall". He also sent the newspaper several scientific papers that supported the claim, but were not cited by that section of the IPCC report.

Lewis says in his PCC complaint that he told The Sunday Times "the IPCC statement itself was scientifically defensible and correct, merely that [it used] the incorrect reference... To state otherwise is to materially mislead the reader."

Lewis also complains that the Sunday Times used several quotes from him in the piece to support the assertion that the IPCC report had made a false claim. "Despite repeatedly stating to the Sunday Times that there is no problem with the sentence in the IPCC report, except the reference."

Lewis said he made the PCC complaint, which runs to 31 pages, only after other attempts to raise his concerns failed. A letter to the Sunday Times, he says, was not acknowledged or printed, and a comment he posted on its website was deleted.

"As a professional scientist I have to clear this mess up, it's important to protect my reputation in terms of providing accurate scientific information to the public."

The Sunday Times said it that printed two letters in response to the article. It said it was "currently dealing with Simon Lewis's complaint and hope to resolve the issue".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/24/sunday-times-ipcc-amazon-rainforest

**********************************
still one must realize that these studies are just based upon what if in a computer model this happens. these sorts of studies can not be proven by studying facts. dire predictive studies are all the norm and that is troubling.

Sun

Sundancefisher

03-25-2010, 12:53 PM

Prescribed Burns May Help Reduce US Carbon Footprint
ScienceDaily (Mar. 18, 2010)

The use of prescribed burns to manage Western forests may help the United States reduce its carbon footprint. A new study finds that such burns, often used by forest managers to reduce underbrush and protect bigger trees, release substantially less carbon dioxide emissions than wildfires of the same size.

"It appears that prescribed burns can be an important piece of a climate change strategy," says Christine Wiedinmyer, a scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and lead author of the new study. "If we reintroduce fires into our ecosystems, we may be able to protect larger trees and significantly reduce the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere by major wildfires."

Drawing on satellite observations and computer models of emissions, the researchers concluded that widespread prescribed burns can reduce fire emissions of carbon dioxide in the West by an average of 18 to 25 percent, and by as much as 60 percent in certain forest systems.

Wildfires often destroy large trees that store significant amounts of carbon. Prescribed fires are designed to burn underbrush and small trees, which store less carbon. By clearing out the underbrush, these controlled burns reduce the chances of subsequent high-severity wildfires, thereby protecting large trees and keeping more carbon locked up in the forest.

"When fire comes more frequently, it's less severe and causes lower tree mortality," says Matthew Hurteau of Northern Arizona University, the study's co-author. "Fire protects trees by clearing out the fuel that builds up in the forest."

The importance of trees

Forests have emerged as important factors in climate change. Trees store, or sequester, significant amounts of carbon, thereby helping offset the large amounts of carbon dioxide emitted by factories, motor vehicles, and other sources. When trees burn down or die, much of that carbon is returned to the atmosphere. It can take decades for forest regrowth to sequester the amount of carbon emitted in a single fire.

In the western United States, land managers for more than a century have focused on suppressing fires, which has led to comparatively dense forests that store large amounts of carbon. But these forests have become overgrown and vulnerable to large fires. Changes in climate, including hotter and drier weather in summer, are expected to spur increasingly large fires in the future.

This could complicate U.S. efforts to comply with agreements on reducing carbon emissions. Such agreements rely, in part, on forest carbon accounting methodologies that call for trees to store carbon for long periods of time. Large carbon releases from wildland fires over the next several decades could influence global climate as well as agreements to reduce emissions.

To determine whether prescribed burns would likely affect the carbon balance, the scientists first estimated actual carbon emissions from fires for 11 Western states from 2001 to 2008. They used satellite observations of fires and a sophisticated computer model, developed by Wiedinmyer, that estimates carbon dioxide emissions based on the mass of vegetation burned.

Their next step was to estimate the extent of carbon emissions if Western forests, during the same time period, had been subjected to a comprehensive program of prescribed burns. The scientists used maps of vegetation types, focusing on the forest types that are subject to frequent natural fires and, therefore, would be top candidates for prescribed burns. Emissions in the model were based on observations of emissions from prescribed burns of specific types of forests.

The results showed that carbon emissions were reduced by anywhere from 37 to 63 percent for the forests that had been subject to prescribed burns, depending on the vegetation mix and location of the forests. Overall, carbon emissions for the 11 Western states were reduced by an annual average of 14 million metric tons. That is the equivalent of about 0.25 percent of annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, or slightly more than the annual carbon dioxide emissions from all fossil fuel sources in some less-populated states, such as Rhode Island or South Dakota.

The authors cautioned, however, that the actual impacts in the Western states would likely be lower. Their study assumed that prescribed burns could be set in all suitable forests, whereas forest managers in reality would be hard-pressed to set so many fires, especially in remote regions or near developments.

New Mexico had the highest average annual reduction (35 percent) because of its forest types, followed by Montana, Arizona, California, and Colorado.

The study notes that prescribed burns could lead to additional air quality benefits. Previous research has indicated that such burns could reduce emissions of pollutants such as fine particulate matter and carbon monoxide.

"While it can be costly to set controlled fires, there is also a cost in leaving forests vulnerable to larger fires," Wiedinmyer says. "More research can help forest managers make better decisions about our forests and climate change."

The study is being published this week in Environmental Science and Technology. It was funded by the National Science Foundation, NCAR's sponsor.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100317121352.htm

Sundancefisher

04-07-2010, 11:10 AM

Climate change row over the mystery of the shrinking sheep
Scientists have questioned claims that global warming is causing sheep to change size and colour in the latest row to engulf climate change science.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Published: 7:00AM BST 07 Apr 2010

The theory first emerged a year ago when scientists noticed that wild sheep on the island of St Kilda north of Scotland were getting smaller – despite the fact that according to evolutionary law larger sheep should be more successful.

It was also noticed that the Soay sheep were getting lighter as the climate warmed.

The idea captured the imagination of the public at a time when people were becoming increasingly concerned about the effects of climate change.

But scientists are now saying there is no evidence sheep shrink in a warming climate and are questioning the use of such theories to explain the impacts of global warming.

The row comes after a series of scandals rocked the world of climate science. Sceptics claim emails stolen from the University of East Anglia show scientists were willing to manipulate data in a row known as "climategate". United Nations scientists have also been criticised for wrongly claiming the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 in a scandal known as 'glaciergate".

In the latest row, which could become known as 'sheepgate', scientists in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters are questioning the theory that climate change causes sheep to change size and colour.

Dr Jake Gratten at the University of Sheffield said the darker, larger sheep have a different genetic make up that is more likely to be causing numbers to decrease than any environmental factor.

"Given the scrutiny that climate change science is currently under, attributing biological changes to global warming should surely require the highest standards of proof. In this case, there is no evidence that warming climate is responsible for the decline in frequency of dark Soay sheep on St Kilda," he said.

But the original author of the theory, Dr Shane Maloney at the University of Western Australia, insisted that dark sheep survive better in the cold because they absorb sunlight, therefore numbers are falling as the temperature warms and they lose their advantage. At the same time smaller sheep are better able to breed and increase in numbers in warmer climes.

He said the genetic make up could be an explanation for the change in numbers, but climate change was just as plausible an answer.

"The field of climate change science being under close scrutiny should not hinder the free exchange of ideas. We have presented a plausible hypothesis alternative to that of Gratten et al and their recent comments do not persuade us to retract that hypothesis. What we have presented is not a proof. It is an idea, just as a co-assorted QTL of unknown function [genetic make-up] is an idea," he said.

"Climate change is plausible as an explanation, but that does not make genetic linkage wrong. And likewise, a genetic linkage is plausible, but that does not make climate change wrong as an explanation."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7559596/Climate-change-row-over-the-mystery-of-the-shrinking-sheep.html

Sundancefisher

04-07-2010, 11:14 AM

What's the Next 'Global Warming'? Herewith I propose a contest to invent the next panic.

By BRET STEPHENS

So global warming is dead, nailed into its coffin one devastating disclosure, defection and re-evaluation at a time. Which means that pretty soon we're going to need another apocalyptic scare to take its place.

As recently as October, the Guardian reported that scientists at Cambridge had "concluded that the Arctic is now melting at such a rate that it will be largely ice free within ten years." This was supposedly due to global warming. It brought with it the usual lamentations for the grandchildren.

But in March came another report in the Guardian, this time based on the research of Japanese scientists, that "much of the record breaking loss of ice in the Arctic ocean in recent years is [due] to the region's swirling winds and is not a direct result of global warming." It also turns out that the extent of Arctic sea ice in March was around the recorded average, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

The difference between the two stories has little to do with science: There were plenty of reasons back in October to suspect that the Arctic ice panic—based on data that only goes back to 1979—was as implausible as the now debunked claim about disappearing Himalayan glaciers. But thanks to Climategate and the Copenhagen fiasco, the media are now picking up the kinds of stories they previously thought it easier and wiser to ignore.

This is happening internationally. In France, a book titled "L'imposture climatique" is a runaway bestseller: Its author, Claude Allègre, is one of the country's most acclaimed scientists and a former minister of education in a Socialist government. In Britain, environmentalist patron saint James Lovelock now tells the BBC he suspects climate scientists have "[fudged] the data" and that if the planet is going to be saved, "it will save itself, as it always has done." In Germany, the leftish Der Spiegel devotes 15 pages to a deliciously detailed account of "scientists who want to be politicians," the "curious inconsistencies" in the temperature record, the "sloppy work" of the U.N.'s climate-change panel and sundry other sins of modern climatology.

As for the United States, Gallup reports that global warming now ranks sixth on the list of Americans' top 10 environmental concerns. My wager is that within a few years "climate change" will exercise global nerves about as much as overpopulation, toxic tampons, nuclear winters, ozone holes, killer bees, low sperm counts, genetically modified foods and mad cows do today.

Something is going to have to take its place.

The world is now several decades into the era of environmental panic. The subject of the panic changes every few years, but the basic ingredients tend to remain fairly constant. A trend, a hypothesis, an invention or a discovery disturbs the sense of global equilibrium. Often the agent of distress is undetectable to the senses, like a malign spirit. A villain—invariably corporate and right-wing—is identified.

Then money begins to flow toward grant-seeking institutions and bureaucracies, which have an interest in raising the level of alarm. Environmentalists counsel their version of virtue, typically some quasi-totalitarian demands on the pattern of human behavior. Politicians assemble expert panels and propose sweeping and expensive legislation. Eventually, the problem vanishes. Few people stop to consider that perhaps it wasn't such a crisis in the first place.

This is what's called eschatology—a belief, or psychology, that we are approaching the End Time. Religions have always found a way to take account of those beliefs, but today's secular panics are unmoored by spiritual consolations or valid moral injunctions. Instead, we have the modern-day equivalent of the old Catholic indulgence in the form of carbon credits. It's how Al Gore justifies his utility bills.

Given the inescapability of weather, it's no wonder global warming gripped the public mind as long as it did. And there's always some extreme-weather event happening somewhere to be offered as further evidence of impending catastrophe. But even weather gets boring, and so do the people who natter about it incessantly. What this decade requires is a new and better panic.

Herewith, then, I propose a readers' contest to invent the next panic. It must involve something ubiquitous, invisible to the naked eye, and preferably mass-produced. And the solution must require taxes, regulation, and other changes to civilization as we know it. The winner gets a beer and a burger, on me, at the 47th street Pig N' Whistle in New York City. (Nachos for vegetarians.) Happy panicking!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304017404575165573845958914.html?m od=rss_Today's_Most_Popular

Sundancefisher

04-10-2010, 11:22 AM

Hopefully they will present all data rather than just select only the few cores that support the global warming theory like the IPCC did.

*********************************************
Scientists to Unearth Ice Age Secrets from Preserved Tree Rings

ScienceDaily (Apr. 6, 2010) — Oxford University is involved in a research project to unearth 30,000 year old climate records, before they are lost forever. The rings of preserved kauri trees, hidden in New Zealand's peat bogs, hold the secret to climate fluctuations spanning back to the end of the last Ice Age.

The team, led by Exeter University, has been awarded a grant from the Natural Environment Research Council to carry out carbon dating and other analyses of the kauri tree rings. The trees store an immense amount of information about rapid and extreme climate change in the past. For instance, wide ring widths are associated with cool dry summer conditions. The scientists believe their findings will help us understand what future climate change may bring.

Tree rings are now known to be an excellent resource for extracting very precise and detailed data on atmospheric carbon from a particular time period. Therefore this study could help plug a large gap in our knowledge of climate change by extending historical weather records that only date back to the mid-nineteenth century.

There is nowhere else in the world with such a rich resource of ancient wood that spans such a large period of time. The ancient kauri logs are of enormous dimensions, up to several metres across, and have the potential to provide new detailed information about rapid, extreme and abrupt climate changes at a time when there was significant human migration throughout the globe.

While various records exist for historic climate change, such as those derived from ice cores, there is no easy way of correlating these records. The research will focus on the last 30,000 years, but some trees date back 130,000 years. The period towards the end of the last Ice Age is particularly difficult to understand.

This unique archive of kauri trees is likely to be lost within the next ten years because the timber is so highly-prized for furniture, arts and crafts. Kauri (Agathis australis) are conifer trees buried in peat bogs across northern New Zealand. Trees can measure up to four metres wide and live for up to 2,000 years. As well as containing information on past climates, they could also shed light on environmental and archaeological change.

Samples from a network of sites with buried trees will be collected in New Zealand and taken back to the UK laboratories for preparation and analysis at Exeter and then radiocarbon measurement at Oxford.

Professor Christopher Ramsey, from the School of Archaeology at the University of Oxford, said: 'This gives us a unique opportunity to increase our knowledge of the earth's climate and human responses to it at the end of the last Ice Age. The radiocarbon measurements should give us important new data that will help us to understand interactions between the atmosphere and the oceans during this period when there was rapid and dynamic change. Equally exciting is the prospect it will give us of more precise dating of archaeological sites from this period -- illuminating the only window we have onto how humans responded to these major changes in the environment.'

Lead researcher Professor Chris Turney of the University of Exeter said: 'We are facing a race against the clock to gather the information locked inside these preserved trees. It is fantastic to have this funding so we are able to gather this information before it is lost forever. While it will be fascinating to find out more about the earth 30,000 years ago perhaps more importantly we will have a better appreciation of the challenges of future climate change.'

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100405103837.htm

Sundancefisher

04-14-2010, 08:00 AM

'No malpractice' by climate unit

The row surrounds e-mails hacked from the University of East Anglia
There was no scientific malpractice at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, which was at the centre of the "Climategate" affair.

This is according to an independent panel chaired by Lord Oxburgh, which was convened to examine the research published by the unit.

It began its review after e-mails from CRU scientists were published online.

The panel said it might be helpful if researchers worked more closely with professional statisticians.

This would ensure the best methods were used when analysing the complex and often "messy" data on climate, the report said.

"We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians," the panel remarked in its conclusions.

The e-mails issue came to light in November last year, when hundreds of messages between CRU scientists and their peers around the world were posted on the world wide web, along with other documents.

Critics said that the e-mail exchanges revealed an attempt by the researchers involved to manipulate data.

But a recent House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report into the e-mails concluded that the scientists involved had no intention to deceive.

And Lord Oxburgh said that he hoped these further "resounding affirmations" of the unit's scientific practice would put those suspicions to bed.

He stated: "We found absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever. That doesn't mean that we agreed with all of their conclusions, but scientists people were doing their jobs honestly."

Climate interest

The chair has been challenged over his other interests. Lord Oxburgh is currently president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and chairman of wind energy firm Falck Renewables.

Critics say clean energy companies would benefit from policies to tackle climate change. But Lord Oxburgh insists the panel did not have a pre-conceived view.

The panel included Professor David Hand, president of the Royal Statistical Society, who had been examining the way CRU used statistical methodology to develop an average annual global temperature.

Climate sceptics have argued CRU's statistical methods were inadequate.

And Professor Hand pointed out that the translation of "messy data" into clear facts had caused problems.

But he said that the CRU were "to be commended for how they dealt with the data," adding that, in their research papers, they were very open about the uncertainty in the numbers.

It is straightforward to get a measurement precise in space and time from an individual weather station - albeit with uncertainties attached.

But some countries have many weather stations, while others have very few, and there are sizeable areas of the Earth with no surface measurements at all.

"Unfortunately," Professor Hand said, "when this research is [republished and] popularised, those caveats tend to be forgotten."

The panel noted that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was one of the organisations that had "oversimplified" the CRU data it used in its publications.

They said it had neglected to highlight the discrepancy between direct and "proxy" measurements, such as the tree ring data often used to reconstruct past temperature changes.

He added that CRU had been "a little naïve" in not working more closely with statisticians.

Lord Oxburgh said that undertaking such interdisciplinary work in the future would address the fact that the there "probably there wasn't enough involvement of people outside of the immediate [climatic research] community" in the work undertaken at CRU.

UEA's vice chancellor Edward Acton said he welcomed the report.

"It is especially important that, despite a deluge of allegations and smears against the CRU, this independent group of utterly reputable scientists have concluded that there was no evidence of any scientific malpractice," he said.

Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, criticised the panel for producing a report that was "not even-handed" and appeared to be the product of a "rushed job".

He said: "This has produced a very superficial report. The panel should have taken more time to come to more balanced and trustworthy conclusions.

"They should have heard evidence from critical researchers who have been working in the same field for many years."

But Lord Oxburgh said that the seriousness of the allegations being investigated made it crucial that the panel publish their findings "as quickly as possible".

He explained: "We read 11 key [CRU] publications spreading back over 20 years and a large number of others. We then spent 15 person days interviewing the scientists at UEA.

"I don't know what more we could have done and we came to a unanimous conclusion."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8618024.stm

Sundancefisher

04-14-2010, 08:04 AM

'Climategate' scientists criticised for not using best statistical tools
Climate change scientists at the centre of an ongoing row over man-made global warming have been criticised for being "naive" and "disorganised".

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Published: 1:34PM BST 14 Apr 2010

An independent inquiry said the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia was "ill prepared for being the focus of public attention" when sceptics began to question their figures on climate change.

As well as taking issue with the researchers' record keeping, the panel of experts said better statistical methods should have been used to interpret the "messy" data on world temperatures.

"We found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention," said Lord Oxburgh, an academic and former head of Shell, who conducted the inquiry.

However, there was no evidence of "deliberate scientific malpractice", meaning the conclusion that mankind is causing global warming is probably correct.

The independent panel said any exaggeration of the extent of global warming was made by other organisations, including public bodies and governments, that took the information produced by academics but failed to inform the public about the uncertainties.

Supporters of the scientists said the investigation upheld the science behind global warming and undermined the arguments of critics.

The "climategate" scandal erupted after thousands of emails were stolen from the CRU at the end of last year. One email referred to a "trick" to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, prompting claims that scientists were willing to manipulate the data to exaggerate the extent of global warming.

The incident led to a public outcry, casting doubt over climate change just as the United Nations was meeting in Copenhagen to try to agree a deal to stop global warming.

Lord Oxburgh was asked to look back at 20 years of research by CRU in order to check the scientific methods were sound. In a detailed review of 11 scientific papers he found "absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever".

"Whatever was said in the emails, the basic science seems to have been done honestly and fairly," he said.

Lord Oxburgh said any exaggeration of the extent of global warming happened when the data produced by CRU was presented to the public by various organisations, including the UN body in charge of climate change the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that went on to advise Governments around the world. The IPCC has also been criticised for incorrectly claiming the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

"I am sure that they [public bodies including the IPCC] took the uncertainties into account making policy but in the way some of this has been presented to the public, it has not," he said.

The statistical methods used by the scientists could also have been improved, according to the panel.

Professor David Hand, president of the Royal Statistical Society and a member of the review panel, said improved techniques developed by computers over recent years could have been used.

"I think that CRU perhaps did not use the most advanced statistical tools. But it's not clear to me that that, had they done, that they would have drawn different conclusions," he said.

However Professor Hand did say that "inappropriate methods" were used by a separate university to draw up the infamous "hockey stick" graph showing the rise in global temperatures over more than 1,000 years.

Again, he said the basic shape of the graph would not have been changed but the rise in temperature during the 20th century compared to the past was exaggerated.

Overall Prof Hand said the scientists at CRU were to be commended for making clear there are uncertainties in the extent of global warming – although that does not change the overall trend.

"There is no evidence of anything underhand – the opposite, if anything, they have brought out into the open the uncertainties with what they are dealing with," he said.

Edward Acton, Vice Chancellor of the University of East Anglia, said the report was a great relief to the individuals involved including the head of the CRU at the time Prof Phil Jones.

"This has been a horrendous experience for Phil Hones and a turbulent time for CRU," he said. "We have had months of vilification against our most precious asset of scientific integrity which, as this report confirms yet again, was totally unjustified."

Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics and Political Science, called for an apology from the sceptics.

"I think those so-called sceptics who have attempted to undermine the credibility of climate change science on the basis of the hacked emails now need to apologise for misleading the public about their significance.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7589715/Climategate-scientists-criticised-for-not-using-best-statistical-tools.html

Sundancefisher

04-14-2010, 08:06 AM

This is an interesting review of the issue for a geologist forum.

Regardless of what side you are on...he presents very well.

http://cspg.insinc.com/cspgtlwebcast-osborn20100309/

Sundancefisher

04-15-2010, 07:16 AM

Low solar activity link to cold UK winters
By Mark Kinver
Science and environment reporter, BBC News

A period of low solar activity could lead to more cold winters in the UK

The 'Big Freeze' explained
The UK and continental Europe could be gripped by more frequent cold winters in the future as a result of low solar activity, say researchers.

They identified a link between fewer sunspots and atmospheric conditions that "block" warm, westerly winds reaching Europe during winter months.

But they added that the phenomenon only affected a limited region and would not alter the overall global warming trend.

The findings appear in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

"By recent standards, we have just had what could be called a very cold winter and I wanted to see if this was just another coincidence or statistically robust," said lead author Mike Lockwood, professor of space environment physics at the University of Reading, UK.

To examine whether there was a link, Professor Lockwood and his co-authors compared past levels of solar activity with the Central England Temperature (CET) record, which is the world's longest continuous instrumental record of such data.

The researchers used the 351-year CET record because it provided data that went back to the beginning of the Maunder Minimum, a prolonged period of very low activity on the Sun that lasted about half a century.

The Maunder Minimum occurred in the latter half of the 17th Century - a period when Europe experienced a series of harsh winters, which has been dubbed by some as the Little Ice Age. Following this, there was a gradual increase in solar activity that lasted 300 years.

Professor Lockwood explained that studies of activity on the Sun, which provides data stretching back over 9,000 years, showed that it tended to "ramp up quite slowly over about a 300-year period, then drop quite quickly over about a 100-year period".

He said the present decline started in 1985 and was currently about "half way back to a Maunder Minimum condition".

This allowed the team to compare recent years with what happened in the late 1600s.

"We found that you could accommodate both the Maunder Minimum and the last few years into the same framework," he told BBC News.

Big chill

Professor Lockwood said that there were a number of possibilities that could explain the link, but the team favoured the idea of a meteorological phenomenon known as "blocking".

This affects the dynamics of jet streams, which are very strong winds about 7-12km above the Earth's surface that can have a major influence on weather systems. There is one jet stream present in each hemisphere.

"Europe is particularly susceptible because, firstly, it lies underneath the (northern hemisphere's) jet stream," he explained.

A "blocking" occurs when the jet stream forms an "s" shape over the north-eastern Atlantic, causing the wind to fold back over itself.

"If you haven't got blocking, then the jet stream brings the mild, wet westerly winds to give us the weather we are famous for."

But, he added, if the jet stream is "blocked", and pushed further northwards, then cold, dry winds from the east flow over Europe, resulting in a sharp fall in temperatures.

"This... 'blocking' does seem to be one of the things that can be modulated by solar activity," he said.

Recent studies suggest that when solar activity is low, "blocking" events move eastwards from above north-eastern North America towards Europe, and become more stable.

A prolonged "blocking" during the most recent winter was responsible for the long spell of freezing conditions that gripped Europe.

Written observations from the period of the Maunder Minimum referred to the wind coming from the east during particularly cold winters, which strengthened the team's "blocking" hypothesis.

The way in which solar activity affects the behaviour of blocking episodes is linked to the amount of ultraviolet (UV) emissions being produced by the Sun.

Solar UV heats the stratosphere (20-50km above the surface), particularly the equatorial stratosphere. This results in a temperature gradient, which leads to the formation of high level winds.

"The change in solar activity undoubtedly changes the stratospheric winds," said Professor Lockwood.

Studies have shown that the state of the stratosphere can make a considerable difference to what happens in the troposphere, which is where the jet stream occurs, Professor Lockwood explained.

"There has been some quite simple modelling that indicated that heating the equatorial stratosphere with more UV would actually move the jet streams a little bit, by just a few degrees.

"That, of course, has the potential to change the behaviour of the jet streams - and that is the sort of thing that we think we are seeing."

'Blocking central'

Professor Lockwood was keen to stress that "blocking" only affected a limited geographical region, and would not have a widespread impact on the global climate system.

To illustrate the point, he said that while the CET record showed that this winter was the UK's 14th coldest in 160 years, global figures listed it as the fifth warmest.

He said that one of his colleagues at the University of Reading referred to Europe as "blocking central".

"The reason is largely because the jet stream has to come to us over the Atlantic Ocean and it is slowed down when it hits the land in Europe.

"You don't quite have the same combination of circumstances anywhere else in the world that gives you such strong blocking."

While the current decline in solar activity is expected to continue in the coming decades, he cautioned that more frequent "blocking" episodes would not result in Europe being plunged into sub-zero temperatures every winter.

"If we look at the last period of very low solar activity at the end of the 17th Century, we find the coldest winter on record in 1684, but the very next year - when solar activity was still low - saw third warmest winter in the entire 350-year (CET) record."

A number of other meteorological factors also influenced the weather systems over Europe, so a number of parameters had to be met before a "blocking" occurred, he observed.

Responding to the team's findings, Dr Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the UK Met Office, said: "This paper provides some additional evidence that what happens in the stratosphere could be important for climate at the surface."

But he added: "The findings are suggestive of a possible effect but more research is needed to pin down the mechanisms and determine how significant such effects could be for determining the probability of cold winters in the UK.

"At the Met Office, we are already working on research into incorporating better representation of the stratosphere into our seasonal and decadal forecasting models."

Professor Lockwood said he now planned to examine the influence of low solar activity on European weather during the summer months.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8615789.stm

Roughneck Country

04-15-2010, 07:05 PM

I believe in Global warming and this is why... THE EARTH HAS BEEN WARMING SINCE THE LAST ICE AGE!!!HELLO most of the continent was covered in ice at one point in time, the earth is naturally warming...as for human influence on it, im not a scientist so I cant comment. But the fact that we have oil and find fossils of palm trees etc here should tell ya that this place was a whole lot warmer at one point in time as well.

Sundancefisher

04-16-2010, 11:48 AM

Could Iceland's Volcano Slow Global Warming?
Apr 16 2010, 12:31 PM ET

Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull volcano has been erupting for nearly a month, but it wasn't until clouds of ash halted air traffic in Europe this week that the eruption drew global attention. The volcano could continue erupting for months on end -- the last time it blew, in 1821, the eruption lasted for two years -- so climatologists are questioning whether the volcano will have a cooling effect on the earth's climate.

When volcanoes erupt, they release sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, where the gas transforms into sulfuric acid droplets, also known as aerosols, which reflect sunlight. Historically, large volcanic eruptions have caused discernible global cooling. When Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it emitted 17 million tons of sulfur dioxide that caused a 0.5-0.6°C drop in the Northern Hemisphere's temperature. Mexico's Mount Chichon eruption in 1982 also had a demonstrable cooling effect.

Advocates of geoengineering, or manipulating climatic elements in order to slow climate change, have suggested mimicking this cooling effect by spewing sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. One of the flaws in their argument, in addition to the need for an 18-mile-long vertical hose, is that sulfur dioxide is not all fun and cooling games. The gas also causes acid rain and wears away the ozone layer, a key barrier to the sun's rays.

At this point, scientists think Iceland's eruption is too small to cause cooling -- notwithstanding the massive disruptions it is causing to air travel in northern Europe. If Eyjafjallajokull continues to spew gas into the atmosphere, though, that could change. The eruption is already ten times more powerful than a different Icelandic one last month, and the ash cloud extends seven miles into the stratosphere -- so at least the sunsets are cool.

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2010/04/could-icelands-volcano-slow-global-warming/39066/

Sundancefisher

04-21-2010, 01:30 PM

One of the hardest things for me is looking at that Projected Global Temperature Increase graph and seeing that firstly the ranges don't make from present to the future projections and that future projections are so variable. Looking at the worst case projection it makes we want to jump on board. Problem is not a single projection has come in to date on the mid to high end. Always on the low end. Then you look at the low and think...hey...maybe this is just a natural global temperature ossilation cycle?

Still...Mrs Little...you have to worry about the sky...don't you?

Sun

******************************************
Wednesday, 21 April 2010 20:17 UK

'Paltry' Copenhagen carbon pledges point to 3C world
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News

Pledges made at December's UN summit in Copenhagen are unlikely to keep global warming below 2C, a study concludes.

Writing in the journal Nature, analysts at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research in Germany say a rise of at least 3C by 2100 is likely.

The team also says many countries, including EU members and China, have pledged slower carbon curbs than they have been achieving anyway.

They say a new global deal is needed if deeper cuts are to materialise.

"There's a big mismatch between the ambitious goal, which is 2C... and the emissions reductions," said Potsdam's Malte Meinshausen.

"The pledged emissions reductions are in most cases very unambitious," he told BBC News.

In their Nature article, the team uses stronger language, describing the pledges as "paltry".

"The prospects for limiting global warming to 2C - or even to 1.5C, as more than 100 nations demand - are in dire peril," they conclude.

Between now and 2020, global emissions are likely to rise by 10-20%, they calculate, and the chances of passing 3C by 2100 are greater than 50%.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), this implies a range of serious impacts for the world, including

significant falls in crop yields across most of the world
damage to most coral reefs
likely disruption to water supplies for hundreds of millions of people.

More than 120 countries have now associated themselves with the Copenhagen Accord, the political document stitched together on the summit's final day by a small group of countries led by the US and the BASIC bloc of Brazil, China, India and South Africa.

The accord "recognises" the 2C target as indicated by science. It was also backed at last year's G8 summit.

Many of those 120-odd have said what they are prepared to do to constrain their greenhouse gas emissions - either pledging cuts by 2020, in the case of industrialised countries, or promising to improve their "carbon intensity" in the case of developing nations.

Some of the pledges are little more than vague statements of intent. But all developed countries, and the developing world's major emitters, have all given firm figures or ranges of figures.

The EU, for example, pledges to cut emissions by 20% from 1990 levels by 2020; China promises to improve carbon intensity by 40-45% by 2020 compared against 2005; and Australia vows an emission cut of 5-25% on 2000 levels by 2020.

The Potsdam team concludes that many of the detailed pledges are nowhere near as ambitious as their proponents would claim.

They calculate that the EU's 20% pledge implies an annual cut of 0.45% between 2010 and 2020, whereas it is already achieving annual reductions larger than that.

EUROPE'S 'AMBITIOUS' CARBON CUTS

The Potsdam team calculates that the EU's emissions have fallen on average by 0.6% per year since 1980
During 2009, emissions from the bloc's power sector alone fell by 11% owing to the recession
Consequently, the current 20% by 2020 pledge equates to 0.45% per year - less than the historical average

China's 40% minimum pledge also amounts to nothing more than business as usual, they relate; and among developed countries, only pledges by Norway and Japan fall into the 25-40% by 2020 range that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommends as necessary to give a good chance of meeting the 2C target.

Hot air

Whereas many countries, rich and poor, have indicated they are willing to be more ambitious if there is a binding global deal, the Potsdam team notes that in the absence of a global deal, only the least ambitious end of their range can be counted upon.

Writing in the BBC's Green Room this week, Bryony Worthington from the campaign group Sandbag argues that the EU can easily move to its alternative higher figure of 30% - and that it must, if it wants to stimulate others to cut deeper.

"Many countries are looking to Europe to show how it is possible to achieve growth without increasing emissions," she said.

"Only when they see that this is possible will they be inclined to adopt absolute reduction targets of their own."

An additional factor flagged up in the analysis is that many countries have accrued surplus emissions credits under the Kyoto Protocol.

Countries such as Russia and other former Eastern bloc nations comfortably exceeded their Kyoto targets owing to the collapse of Communist economies in the early 1990s.

Without a binding global agreement preventing the practice, these nations would be allowed to put these "banked" credits towards meeting any future targets - meaning they would have to reduce actual emissions less than they promised.

These "hot air" credits could also be traded between nations.

Stern words

This is not the first analysis of the Copenhagen Accord pledges, but it is one of the starkest.

Lord Stern's team at the Grantham Research Institute for Climate Change and the Environment in London has also run the figures; and although their conclusions on the numbers are similar, they do not see things in quite such a pessimistic light.

"You cannot characterise an emissions path for a country or the world by focusing solely on the level in 2020 or any other particular date," said the institute's principal research fellow Alex Bowen.

"It is the whole path that matters, and if more action is taken now to reduce emissions, less action will be required later, and vice versa."

The Potsdam team acknowledges that if emissions do rise as they project, it would still be possible to have a reasonable chance of meeting 2C if very strict carbon curbs were applied thereafter, bringing emissions down by 5% per year or so.

"In an ideal world, if you pull off every possible emission reduction from the year 2021 onwards, you can still get to get to 2C if you're lucky," said Dr Meinshausen.

"But it is like racing towards the cliff and hoping you stop just before it."

They argue that positive analyses may "lull decision-makers into a false sense of security".

The UN climate process continues through this year, with many countries saying they still want to reach a binding global agreement by December.

But stark divisions remain between various blocs over emission cuts, finance, technology transfer and other issues; and it is far from certain that all important countries want anything more binding than the current set of voluntary national commitments.

Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8635765.stm

walking buffalo

04-21-2010, 02:19 PM

An increasingly common practice for "environmental groups" in the US is to sue the government for not considering 'global warming'.

http://westinstenv.org/wildpeop/2010/04/07/grizzlies-relisted-due-to-global-warming/

Grizzlies Relisted Due to Global Warming

The US Fish and Wildlife Service put grizzly bears in and around Yellowstone National Park back on the threatened species list on March 26th. The USFWS was forced to do so by a court decision that said global warming is causing the bears to go extinct.

Yellowstone grizzlies were first listed as endangered in 1975 when 200 bears roamed the park and surrounding areas. After $20 million was spent to recover the species, over 600 bears in Yellowstone constituted the densest population in North America and grizzlies had spread throughout the Northern Rockies.

The USFWS delisted Yellowstone grizzlies in 2007, as required under the Endangered Species Act, because determination was made that the Yellowstone grizzly bear population was no longer an endangered or threatened population.

The Greater Yellowstone Coalition brought suit, contending that whitebark pine was declining due to global warming, that grizzlies are dependent on whitebark pine nuts, and that therefore the bears were still endangered and likely to go extinct.

All those contentions are completely bogus, yet U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy ruled last September that, “There is a connection between whitebark pine and grizzly survival” [http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/sep/21/federal-judge-says-grizzlies-still-threatened/].

Judge Molloy is the same judge who put Northern Rocky Mountain wolves back on the endangered species list because he determined the wolves capacity for “genetic exchange” was inadequate [http://westinstenv.org/wildpeop/2008/08/14/molloy-tosses-science/].

Judge Molloy thinks he is a wildlife biologist, but his theories are completely crackers. Judges who pretend to be scientists, who ignore the overwhelming testimony of real scientists and dream up their own crackpot theories, are a strain and burden to the American judicial system.

In this case Judge Molloy didn’t base his ruling on his pet “genetic exchange” theory, but instead ruled that “climate change” was going to make the bears go extinct. This is despite the fact that the grizzly bear population has grown steadily over the last 35 years, a period when climate alarmists claim we have experienced global warming.

Note: No one can prove that the climate anywhere has “changed”. No one can prove that it is going to. The entire global warming theory is a hoax and a scam.

But even if the climate changes, it will not affect grizzly bears who once roamed regions far to the south of Yellowstone. Heck, grizzly bears once roamed California where they are the Official State Animal. Grizzly bears are not restricted ecologically to any particular climate.

Nor are whitebark pine nuts the principal food of grizzly bears. They are a minor snack, and in most places where grizzly bears live there are no whitebark pine trees at all!

Nor are whitebark pines dying out, nor will they even if the climate changes, which it is not going to.

The entire theory is complete eco-babble nonsense and bogosity. But Judge Molloy is all-powerful, no matter how loony he his. The system is truly broken when lunatics run the asylum, and that is exactly the case in America today. Justice is not only blind, she is mad as a hatter.

Extracts from the grizzly bear relisiting Final Rule follow:

Federal Register: March 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 58)
Rules and Regulations, Page 14496-14498, [http://www.fws.gov/policy/library/2010/2010-6802.html]

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reinstatement of Protections for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in Compliance With Court Order

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) are issuing this final rule to comply with a court order that has the effect of reinstating the regulatory protections under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, for the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) and surrounding area. This rule corrects the grizzly bear listing to reinstate the listing of grizzly bears in the GYA. This final rule also takes administrative action to correct two associated special rules.

DATES: This action is effective March 26, 2010. However, the court order had legal effect immediately upon being filed on September 21, 2009.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 29, 2007, we announced the establishment of a distinct population segment (DPS) of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) for the GYA and surrounding area and removed this DPS from the List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife (72 FR 14866). In that rule, we determined that the Yellowstone grizzly bear population was no longer an endangered or threatened population pursuant to the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), based on the best scientific and commercial data available. Robust population growth, coupled with State and Federal cooperation to manage mortality and habitat, widespread public support for grizzly bear recovery, and the development of regulatory mechanisms, brought the Yellowstone grizzly bear population to the point where making a change to its status was appropriate.

Subsequently, three lawsuits challenging our decision were filed in Federal courts in Boise, Idaho, and in Missoula, Montana. Legal briefings in these cases were completed in 2008.

In the Montana case, the plaintiff presented four claims including: (1) The regulatory mechanisms to protect the grizzly once it is delisted are inadequate; (2) the Service did not adequately consider the impacts of global warming and other factors on whitebark pine nuts, a grizzly food source; (3) the population is unacceptably small and dependent on translocation of outside animals for genetic diversity; and (4) the Service did not properly consider whether the grizzlies were recovered across a significant portion of their range.

On September 21, 2009, the Montana District Court issued an order in which plaintiffs prevailed on the first and second counts, while the United States prevailed on the third and fourth counts. The court’s order vacated the delisting and remanded it to the Service. Thus, this final rule is required to correct the Yellowstone grizzly bear population’s listing status.

The United States is considering whether to appeal this decision. Regardless, this final rule is necessary because this process, should we move forward with an appeal, would likely take several years to complete. …

Sundancefisher

04-27-2010, 03:07 PM

Global Temperatures Push March 2010 to Hottest March on Record

ScienceDaily (Apr. 21, 2010) — The world's combined global land and ocean surface temperature made last month the warmest March on record, according to NOAA. Taken separately, average ocean temperatures were the warmest for any March and the global land surface was the fourth warmest for any March on record. Additionally, the planet has seen the fourth warmest January -- March period on record.

The monthly National Climatic Data Center analysis, which is based on records going back to 1880, is part of the suite of climate services NOAA provides government, business and community leaders so they can make informed decisions.

* The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for March 2010 was the warmest on record at 56.3°F (13.5°C), which is 1.39°F (0.77°C) above the 20th century average of 54.9°F (12.7°C).

* The worldwide ocean surface temperature was the highest for any March on record --1.01°F (0.56°C) above the 20th century average of 60.7°F (15.9°C).
* Separately, the global land surface temperature was 2.45°F (1.36°C) above the 20th century average of 40.8 °F (5.0°C) -- the fourth warmest on record. Warmer-than-normal conditions dominated the globe, especially in northern Africa, South Asia and Canada. Cooler-than-normal regions included Mongolia and eastern Russia, northern and western Europe, Mexico, northern Australia, western Alaska and the southeastern United States.
* El Niño weakened to moderate strength in March, but it contributed significantly to the warmth in the tropical belt and the overall ocean temperature. According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, El Niño is expected to continue its influence in the Northern Hemisphere at least through the spring.
* For the year-to-date, the combined global land- and ocean-surface temperature of 55.3°F (13.0°C) was the fourth warmest for a January-March period. This value is 1.19°F (0.66°C) above the 20th century average.
* According to the Beijing Climate Center, Tibet experienced its second warmest March since historical records began in 1951. Delhi, India also had its second warmest March since records began in 1901, according to the India Meteorological Department.

Other Highlights

* Arctic sea ice covered an average of 5.8 million square miles (15.1 million square kilometers) during March. This is 4.1 percent below the 1979-2000 average expanse, and the fifth-smallest March coverage since records began in 1979. Ice coverage traditionally reaches its maximum in March, and this was the 17th consecutive March with below-average Arctic sea ice coverage. This year the Arctic sea ice reached its maximum size on March 31st, the latest date for the maximum Arctic sea ice extent since satellite records began in 1979.
* Antarctic sea ice expanse in March was 6.9 percent below the 1979-2000 average, resulting in the eighth smallest March ice coverage on record.
* In China, the Xinjiang province had its wettest March since records began in 1951, while Jilin and Shanghai had their second wettest March on record. Meanwhile, Guangxi and Hainan provinces in southern China experienced their driest March on record, according to the Beijing Climate Center.
* Many locations across Ontario, Canada received no snow, or traces of snow, in March, which set new low snowfall records, according to Environment Canada.

Scientists, researchers, and leaders in government and industry use NOAA's monthly reports to help track trends and other changes in the world's climate. This climate service has a wide range of practical uses, from helping farmers know what and when to plant, to guiding resource managers with critical decisions about water, energy and other vital assets.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100420225712.htm

1. Why talk about a 1979-2000 average instead of 1979 to 2008 average? What happens if to the numbers if you include more recent data?
2. Why comment about local snowfall lows but not say others had highs? El Nino is also not mentioned that this weather fact causes these issues also
3. Also why talk about glacier areas shrinking with no mention about mass increases or decreases. Scientists know that there could be cycles of thickening before expansion.
4. Also 1991's major volcanic event could of left a lot of ash on glaciers...any idea if this is a cause? India has proven that coal and ash from fires and industry is actually falling out on the Himalayas and causing melting.

IMHO

Sun

Sundancefisher

04-27-2010, 03:08 PM

UK May Experience More Cold Winters

ScienceDaily (Apr. 22, 2010) — New research from the University of Reading suggests the UK may experience more cold winters in future when the Sun is at a lower level of activity.

The amount of radiation emitted by the Sun varies naturally over time and over centuries. The scientists measured the magnetic field emanating from the Sun into space to quantify solar activity.

Using records of temperatures dating back to 1659, the study established a connection between lower solar activity and severe winters.

Between 1650 and 1700 there was a prolonged episode of low solar activity which coincided with more severe winters in the UK and continental Europe.

Mike Lockwood, Professor of Space Environment Physics in the Department of Metererology at the University, said: "The UK has experienced relatively mild winters in recent decades, but not this year. Also this year, the Sun fell to an activity level not seen for a century.

"The results relate to a seasonal (winter) and regional (Central England) temperature change and not a global effect. However the work does show how regional or local measurements can show a solar effect and highlights how important it is to avoid trying to make deductions about the global climate from what is seen in just one part of the world."

The paper published in IOP Publishing's Environmental Research Letters, says the cold weather trends during lower solar activity are consistent with solar influence on blocking events in the Eastern Atlantic. Blocking occurs when the warm jet stream from the west on its way to Northern Europe is blocked allowing north-easterly winds to arrive from the Arctic. Blocking episodes can persist for several weeks, leading to extended cold periods in winter.

Professor Lockwood says the trends do not guarantee colder winters but they do suggest that colder winters will become more frequent. He said: "If we look at the last period of very low solar activity at the end of the 17th Century, we find the coldest winter on record in1684 but, for example, the very next year, when solar activity was still low, saw the third warmest winter in the entire 350-year record. The results do show however that there are a greater number of cold UK winters when solar activity is low."

The University of Reading worked in partnership with the Science and Technology Facilities Council Space Science and Technology Department at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire, and the Max-Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100422095549.htm

Sundancefisher

04-27-2010, 03:10 PM

Soil Microbes Produce Less Atmospheric CO2 Than Expected With Climate Warming

ScienceDaily (Apr. 27, 2010) — The physiology of microbes living underground could determine the amount of carbon dioxide emitted from soil on a warmer Earth, according to a study recently published online in Nature Geoscience.

Researchers at UC Irvine, Colorado State University and the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies found that as global temperatures increase, microbes in soil become less efficient over time at converting carbon in soil into carbon dioxide, a key contributor to climate warming.

Microbes, in the form of bacteria and fungi, use carbon for energy to breathe, or respire, and to grow in size and in number. A model developed by the researchers shows microbes exhaling carbon dioxide furiously for a short period of time in a warmer environment, leaving less carbon to grow on. As warmer temperatures are maintained, the less efficient use of carbon by the microbes causes them to decrease in number, eventually resulting in less carbon dioxide being emitted into the atmosphere.

"Microbes aren't the destructive agents of global warming that scientists had previously believed," said Steven Allison, assistant professor of ecology & evolutionary biology at UCI and lead author on the study. "Microbes function like humans: They take in carbon-based fuel and breathe out carbon dioxide. They are the engines that drive carbon cycling in soil. In a balanced environment, plants store carbon in the soil and microbes use that carbon to grow. The microbes then produce enzymes that convert soil carbon into atmospheric carbon dioxide."

The study, "Soil-Carbon Response to Warming Dependent on Microbial Physiology," contradicts the results of older models that assume microbes will continue to spew ever-increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the climate continues to warm. The new simulations suggest that if microbial efficiency declines in a warmer world, carbon dioxide emissions will fall back to pre-warming levels, a pattern seen in field experiments. But if microbes manage to adapt to the warmth -- for instance, through increased enzyme activity -- emissions could intensify.

"When we developed a model based on the actual biology of soil microbes, we found that soil carbon may not be lost to the atmosphere as the climate warms," said Matthew Wallenstein of the Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory at Colorado State University. "Conventional ecosystem models that didn't include enzymes did not make the same predictions."

Mark Bradford, assistant professor of terrestrial ecosystem ecology at Yale, said there is intense debate in the scientific community over whether the loss of soil carbon will contribute to global warming. "The challenge we have in predicting this is that the microbial processes causing this loss are poorly understood," he said. "More research in this area will help reduce uncertainties in climate prediction."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100420225712.htm

Sundancefisher

04-30-2010, 11:07 AM

Through the Looking Glass: Scientists Peer Into Antarctica's Past to See Our Future Climate
ScienceDaily (Apr. 29, 2010)

The poles control much of our global climate. Giant ice sheets in Antarctica behave like mirrors, reflecting the sun's energy and moderating the world's temperatures. The waxing and waning of these ice sheets contribute to changes in sea level and affect ocean circulation, which regulates our climate by transporting heat around the planet.

Despite their present-day cold temperatures, the poles were not always covered with ice. New climate records recovered from Antarctica during the recent Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) "Wilkes Land Glacial History" Expedition show that approximately 53 million years ago, Antarctica was a warm, sub-tropical environment. During this same period, known as the "greenhouse" or "hothouse" world, atmospheric CO2 levels exceeded those of today by ten times.

Then suddenly, Antarctica's lush environment transitioned into its modern icy realm. In only 400,000 years -- a mere blink of an eye in geologic time -- concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide decreased. Global temperatures dropped. Ice sheets developed. Antarctica became ice-bound.

How did this change happen so abruptly and how stable can we expect ice sheets to be in the future?

To answer these questions, an international team of scientists participating in the Wilkes Land Glacial History Expedition spent two months aboard the scientific research vessel JOIDES Resolution in early 2010, drilling geological samples from the seafloor near the coast of Antarctica. Despite negotiating icebergs, near gale-force winds, snow, and fog, they managed to recover approximately 2,000 meters (over one mile) of sediment core.

"These sediments are essential to our research because they preserve the history of the Antarctic ice sheet," observed Dr. Carlota Escutia of the Research Council of Spain CSIC-University of Granada, who led the expedition, along with co-chief scientist Dr. Henk Brinkhuis of Utrecht University in the Netherlands. "We can read these sediments like a history book," Brinkhuis explained. "And this book goes back 53 million years, giving us an unprecedented record of how ice sheets form and interact with changes in the climate and the ocean."

Wilkes Land is the region of Antarctica that lies due south of Australia, and is believed to be one of the more climate-sensitive regions of the polar continent. The new core samples collected during IODP's Wilkes Land expedition are unique because they provide the world's first direct record of waxing and waning of ice in this region of Antarctica.

Combined, the cores tell the story of Antarctica's transition from an ice-free, warm, greenhouse world to an ice-covered, cold, dry "icehouse" world. Sediments and microfossils preserved within the cores document the onset of cooling and the development of the first Antarctic glaciers and the growth and recession of Antarctica's ice sheets. Cores from one site resemble tree rings -- unprecedented alternating bands of light and dark sediment preserve seasonal variability of the last deglaciation that began some 10,000 years ago.

Understanding the behavior of Antarctica's ice sheets plays a fundamental role in our ability to build robust, effective global climate models, which are used to predict future climate. "These models rely on constraints imposed by data from the field," the co-chiefs pointed out. "Measurements of parameters such as age, temperature, and carbon dioxide concentration provide invaluable inputs that help increase the accuracy of these models. The more we can constrain the models, the better they'll perform -- and the better we can predict ice sheet behavior."

What's next? The science team now embarks on a multi-year process of on-shore analyses to further investigate the Wilkes Land cores. Age-dating and chemistry studies among other analyses are expected to resolve changes in Antarctica's climate over unprecedented short timescales (50-20,000 years). Data collected from the Wilkes Land expedition will complement previous research from drilling operations conducted elsewhere in the Antarctic over the last 40 years. Together, this research will provide important age constraints for models of Antarctic ice sheet development and evolution, thereby forming the basis for models of future ice sheet behavior and polar climatic change.

IODP is an international marine research program dedicated to advancing scientific understanding of the Earth through drilling, coring, and monitoring the sub-seafloor. The JOIDES Resolution is a drilling vessel managed by the U.S. Implementing Organization of IODP (USIO), and funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF). Together, Texas A&M University, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, and the Consortium for Ocean Leadership comprise the USIO.

IODP is supported by two lead agencies, NSF in the U.S. and Japan's Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology. Additional program support comes from the European Consortium for Ocean Research Drilling (ECORD), the Australian-New Zealand IODP Consortium (ANZIC), India's Ministry of Earth Sciences, the People's Republic of China (Ministry of Science and Technology), and the Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100429132753.htm

Sundancefisher

04-30-2010, 11:10 AM

Study Gives Green Light to Plants’ Role in Global Warming
ScienceDaily (Apr. 29, 2010)

Plants remain an effective way of tackling global warming despite emitting small amounts of an important greenhouse gas, a study has shown.

Research led by the University of Edinburgh suggests that plant leaves account for less than one per cent of the Earth's emissions of methane -which is considered to be about 25 times more effective than carbon dioxide at global warming.

The results contrast with a previous scientific study which had suggested that plants were responsible for producing large amounts of the greenhouse gas.

The findings confirm that trees are a useful way of offsetting greenhouse gas emissions, as their output of small amounts of methane is far outweighed by their capacity to store carbon from the atmosphere in their leaves, wood and bark.

To reach their conclusions, scientists created artificial leaves made from plant pectin and measured the methane produced when the leaves were exposed to sunlight.

They combined their results with satellite data on the leaf coverage of the Earth's surface, ozone in the atmosphere, cloud cover, temperature, and information on sunshine levels to help work out the amount of methane produced by all plants on Earth.

Their results refine previous studies that had indicated that the quantity of methane produced by plants might have been much higher. Future research will examine methane production from parts of plants other than leaves, and the amount of methane given off by different species of plants in different regions of the Earth.

Dr Andy McLeod, of the University of Edinburgh's School of GeoSciences, said: "Our results show that plant leaves do give rise to some methane, but only a very small amount -- this is a welcome result as it allays fears that forestry and agriculture were contributing unduly to global warming."

The research, carried out in collaboration with the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research and was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council and Forest Research.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100429111021.htm

Sundancefisher

04-30-2010, 11:12 AM

Melting Sea Ice Major Cause of Warming in Arctic, New Study Reveals
ScienceDaily (Apr. 28, 2010) — Melting sea ice has been shown to be a major cause of warming in the Arctic according to a University of Melbourne, Australia study.

Findings published in Nature reveal the rapid melting of sea ice has dramatically increased the levels of warming in the region in the last two decades.

Lead author Dr James Screen of the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne says the increased Arctic warming was due to a positive feedback between sea ice melting and atmospheric warming.

"The sea ice acts like a shiny lid on the Arctic Ocean. When it is heated, it reflects most of the incoming sunlight back into space. When the sea ice melts, more heat is absorbed by the water. The warmer water then heats the atmosphere above it. "

"What we found is this feedback system has warmed the atmosphere at a faster rate than it would otherwise," he says.

Using the latest observational data from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting, Dr Screen was able to uncover a distinctive pattern of warming, highly consistent with the loss of sea ice.

"In the study, we investigated at what level in the atmosphere the warming was occurring. What stood out was how highly concentrated the warming was in the lower atmosphere than anywhere else. I was then able to make the link between the warming pattern and the melting of the sea ice."

The findings question previous thought that warmer air transported from lower latitudes toward the pole, or changes in cloud cover, are the primary causes of enhanced Arctic warming.

Dr Screen says prior to this latest data set being available there was a lot of contrasting information and inconclusive data.

"This current data has provided a fuller picture of what is happening in the region," he says.

Over the past 20 years the Arctic has experienced the fastest warming of any region on the planet. Researchers around the globe have been trying to find out why.

Researchers say warming has been partly caused by increasing human greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, the Arctic sea ice has been declining dramatically. In summer 2007 the Arctic had the lowest sea ice cover on record. Since then levels have recovered a little but the long-term trend is still one of decreasing ice.

Professor Ian Simmonds, of the University's School of Earth Sciences and coauthor on the paper says the findings are significant.

"It was previously thought that loss of sea ice could cause further warming. Now we have confirmation this is already happening."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100428142324.htm

winged1

04-30-2010, 11:59 AM

here's a brilliant suggestion. Why don't we put a very thin layer of oil on top of the ocean's surface to inhibit gaseous exchange. Wonder which way the temperatures will go?

Sundancefisher

04-30-2010, 02:33 PM

Winds from Siberia Reduce Arctic Sea Ice Cover, Norwegian Researchers Find
ScienceDaily (Apr. 28, 2010)

The ice cover in the Arctic has decreased dramatically in recent years. Norwegian researchers have discovered that changes in air circulation patterns create winds that push away the ice.

In recent years, satellite images have shown large variations in the ice cover around the North Pole. The images have also shown that the ice cover in the Arctic has diminished considerably over the past 30 years, with the most drastic reductions occurring in recent years.

Many experts believe that it is now only a matter of decades before climate change results in a totally ice-free Arctic during parts of the year. For instance, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that this may occur by the end of this century.

How much of the change in ice cover is caused by dramatic changes in the climate, and how much is the result of other factors? And what is causing the ice cover in the Arctic to disappear even faster than the climate models project?

The Arctic climate paradox

A few years ago, US researchers discovered what they termed the "Arctic climate paradox." Since 1980, the researchers had been observing a decrease in ice cover. They explained this through a slow process of climate change combined with fluctuations in patterns of atmospheric pressure and air currents over the Arctic. It was believed that the positive phase of the Arctic Oscillation (AO) was a major cause of the receding ice cover.

The AO is normally influenced by three pressure systems located over the Azores, Iceland and the Northern Pacific Ocean. Since 2000 the AO has been in a negative phase. As a result, researchers predicted that the pace of reduction in the ice cover would slow down.

Instead it accelerated.

Unknown factor

"The US researchers argued that the ice was responding to something else, another factor that nobody had considered," explains Asgeir Sorteberg, Associate Professor at the Geophysical Institute at the University of Bergen. He has been investigating this phenomenon along with his colleagues in the project entitled the Norwegian Component of the Ecosystem Studies of Sub-Arctic Seas (NESSAS).

When the Norwegian researchers began their work, they noticed in particular a dramatic change in the weather pattern in the Arctic beginning about the year 2000. The change corresponded to the point in time when the reduction of ice cover in the Arctic began to accelerate.

The researchers began to analyze the circulation patterns over the Arctic.

"We found that these patterns can explain in large part why the ice cover decreased so much more rapidly after 2000. Wind patterns depend on the position of major high-pressure and low-pressure systems. We discovered that months with very little ice cover and high temperatures corresponded with crucial variations in the wind patterns," explains Mr Sorteberg.

"Up until 2000, the Arctic Oscillation (AO) had the greatest impact on the winter ice cover in the Arctic. But the change around 2000 meant that more of the weather and wind over the Arctic after that year was determined by high-pressure and low-pressure systems in northern Russia. In other words, the AO, which was usually so crucial, played a much less important role."

Ice is pushed away

"We have now managed to document what has occurred in connection with this change," says Mr Sorteberg.

The changed wind direction pushes large ice masses away from the Arctic and down along the eastern coast of Greenland. At the same time, less ice forms when the winds over the Arctic are determined by the pressure systems in northern Russia rather than those over the North Atlantic and the Pacific Ocean, as is normally the case.

The conclusion from this research is that we should be cautious about using the extent of the ice cover as an indicator of the ice's climatic "state of health."

The extent of the ice cover is highly dependent on the wind direction, and short-term changes in the ice cover give very little indication of whether climate change is occurring in the Arctic.

"The dramatic changes in the extent of Arctic sea ice in recent years have mainly been caused by atmospheric circulation patterns that have tended to reduce ice cover, combined with a slow process of climate change. Variations in the circulation patterns are part of the natural fluctuations in the weather. In certain periods these fluctuations will reinforce human-made changes, while at other times they will mask them," says Mr Sorteberg.

Climate change leads to thinner ice

Mr Sorteberg believes we should be cautious about interpreting the dramatic decrease in Arctic ice cover in the past decade as an indication that the Arctic will be ice free in 10 to 20 years.

However, he emphasizes that he and his colleagues do not reject the assertion that climate change is affecting Arctic ice cover or that the IPCC is wrong when it states that the Arctic may be nearly ice free in summer towards the end of this century.

"There is no doubt that the Arctic sea ice has become thinner in recent years. The thickness of the sea ice is a much better indicator than the extent of the ice cover if we want to study how climate change may affect the ice in the Arctic," says Mr Sorteberg.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100427111449.htm

Sundancefisher

05-11-2010, 07:54 AM

Why can't we just see a plain, simple, black and white answer to what is it that people are expected to do, pay, cost, give up, change behavior etc. in order to meet the requirements of the average response scientists wish people to do to "combat" this perceived issue. There is constant rhetoric but never anything other than whining about this industry...or that industry.

Enough with the hypothetical studies...the lack of proof...the altering of data. If their is something simple we can do...spit it out. Problem is these groups want us to blindly go down a path without understanding where it will lead...where it will stop...

That is scary power that scientists have tried to politicize. Scientists should never cross over into politics and ideology. You can't believe them after that happens. Now assuming we can make changes...what are they? When will the global warming side give a standard average person breakdown as to what we need to do to change on an individual basis?

That would help my decision tremendously.

Cheers

Sun

************************************************** *********************
Academics urge radical new approach to climate change

Tuesday, 11 May 2010 4:23 UK
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News

CO2 should not be the prime target of climate policy, the report argues A major change of approach is needed if society is to restrain climate change, according to a report from a self-styled "eclectic" group of academics.

The UN process has failed, they argue, and a global approach concentrating on CO2 cuts will never work.

They urge instead the use of carbon tax revenue to develop technologies that can supply clean energy to everyone.

Their so-called Hartwell Paper is criticised by others who say the UN process has curbed carbon emissions.

The paper is named after Hartwell House, the Buckinghamshire mansion, hotel and spa where the group of 14 academics from Europe, North America and Japan gathered in February to develop their ideas.

Its central message is that climate change can be ameliorated best by pursuing "politically attractive and relentlessly pragmatic" options that also curb emissions.

These options include bringing a reliable electricity supply to the estimated 1.5 billion people in the world without it using efficient, low-carbon technologies.

"The raising up of human dignity is the central driver of the Hartwell Paper, replacing the preoccupation with human sinfulness that has failed and will continue to fail to deliver progress," said lead author Prof Gwyn Prins.

Prof Prins is director of the Mackinder Programme for the Study of Long Wave Events at the London School of Economics and Political Science, and an adviser to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the UK charity chaired by Lord Lawson that aims "to help restore balance and trust in the climate debate".

Short-term fixes

The paper says that the outcome of December's UN climate summit, plus the "ClimateGate" affair and inaccuracies within the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 report, means "the legitimacy of the institutions of climate policy and science are no longer assured".

So, successfully tackling climate change initially means re-framing the issue.

In an article for the BBC's Green Room series, another of the authors, Mike Hulme, writes: "Climate change has been represented as a conventional environmental 'problem' that is capable of being 'solved'.

"It is neither of these. Yet this framing has locked the world into the rigid agenda that brought us to the dead end of Kyoto, with no evidence of any discernable acceleration of decarbonisation whatsoever."

The academics advocate concentrating first on short-term fixes for greenhouse gases or other warming agents, such as black carbon - particles emitted from the incomplete burning of fossil fuels, principally in diesel engines and wood stoves.

These particles warm the planet by several mechanisms, including darkening snow so it absorbs more solar energy.

Black carbon may be the second most important man-made warming agent after carbon dioxide.

As it remains in the atmosphere for a matter of weeks, some researchers have suggested that cleaning up its production could be the quickest way of curbing warming, as well as bringing health benefits to poor countries by reducing air pollution.

"To date, climate policy has focused on carbon dioxide primarily, and even to the exclusion of other human influences on the climate system," the report says.

"We believe this path to have been unwise... early action on a wider range of human influences on climate could be more swiftly productive."

However, they acknowledge that carbon emissions do in the end have to be constrained. To that end, they recommend implementing a hypothecated carbon tax in developed economies to fund development of low-carbon energy technologies.

The damaging effects of climate change in developing countries, meanwhile, would be tackled by having Western countries meet the internationally agreed target of contributing 0.7% of their GDP to overseas aid, rather than through specific and complex new climate adaptation funds.

"Just this one action alone would swamp the miserly amounts of money being offered under the Copenhagen Accord," said Prof Hulme.

Lobby group

The outcome of the Copenhagen climate summit - widely seen as a failure among academics and activists - has caused considerable soul-searching about alternative approaches.

But any move away from the negotiated process that puts CO2 at centre stage is regarded as anathema by many.

"The paper's focus away from CO2 is misguided, short-sighted and probably wrong," said Bill Hare from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.

"If you take action on black carbon and do not reduce CO2 emissions then you may end up with more warming in the long term," he told BBC News.

"And in fact, the Kyoto Protocol is one of the few things that have worked, in that it's given momentum to low-carbon energy development - we wouldn't have had the explosion in wind power without it."

The Hartwell Paper initiative was supported by funding from the Japan Iron and Steel Federation, the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, the US-based Nathan Cummings Foundation and the Fondation Hoffmann, Geneva.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10106362.stm

Sundancefisher

06-03-2010, 11:42 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia_pacific/10222679.stm

Low-lying Pacific islands 'growing not sinking'
Page last updated at 6:07 GMT, Thursday, 3 June 2010 7:07 UK
By Nick Bryant
BBC News, Sydney

The islands of Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia are among those which have grown, because of coral debris and sediment.

The study, published in the magazine the New Scientist, predicts that the islands will still be there in 100 years' time.

However it is still unsure whether many of them will be inhabitable.

Prognosis 'incorrect'

In recent times, the inhabitants of many low-lying Pacific islands have come to fear their homelands being wiped off the map because of rising sea levels.

But this study of 27 islands over the last 60 years suggests that most have remained stable, while some have actually grown.

Using historical photographs and satellite imaging, the geologists found that 80% of the islands had either remained the same or got larger - in some cases, dramatically so.

They say it is due to the build-up of coral debris and sediment, and to land reclamation.

Associate Professor Paul Kench of Auckland University, who took part in the study, says the islands are not in immediate danger of extinction.

"That rather gloomy prognosis for these nations is incorrect," he said.

"We have now got the evidence to suggest that the physical foundation of these countries will still be there in 100 years, so they perhaps do not need to flee their country."

But although these islands might not be submerged under the waves in the short-term, it does not mean they will be inhabitable in the long-term, and the scientists believe further rises in sea levels pose a significant danger to the livelihoods of people living in Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia.

One scientist in Kiribati said that people should not be lulled into thinking that inundation and coastal erosion were not a major threat.

Sundancefisher

08-30-2010, 08:13 AM

29 August 2010

UN climate change panel to face Himalaya error verdict

The IPCC came under fire after using the wrong date for Himalayan glacier melt An international committee reviewing the "processes and procedures" of the UN's climate science panel is set to report on Monday.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has faced mounting pressure over errors in its last major assessment of climate science in 2007.

The review was overseen by the Inter-Academy Council, which brings together bodies such as the UK's Royal Society.

The findings are to be unveiled at a news conference in New York.

The IPCC has admitted it made a mistake in its 2007 climate assessment in asserting that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

Dr Pachauri has said he welcomes a "vigorous debate" on climate science But officials at the UN organisation said this error did not change the broad picture of man-made climate change.

In February, the IPCC suggested setting up an independent review, feeling that its 20-year-old rules and working practices perhaps needed an overhaul.

There was also a sense the UN body may have been ill-equipped to handle the unprecedented attention in the wake of "Himalayagate" and the release of e-mails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the the University of East Anglia, in the UK.

Governments endorsed the idea, and in March UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon commissioned the review from the Inter-Academy Council (IAC), an international umbrella body for science academies.

The council established a a 12-member review panel, chaired by US economist Professor Harold Shapiro, a former adviser to two former US presidents, George H W Bush and Bill Clinton.

'Grey literature'

The IAC will deliver its report to Mr Ban and to IPCC chair Dr Rajendra Pachauri in New York on Monday. A source told BBC News that no advance copies of the report had been shown to UN officials.

The review will not address the state of knowledge in climate science, but will instead review processes at the UN body, including the use of non-peer reviewed sources, and quality control on data.

Continue reading the main story
Review's terms of reference
Analyse the IPCC process, including links with other UN agencies Review the use of non-peer reviewed sources, and quality control on data Assess how procedures handle "the full range of scientific views" Review how the IPCC communicates with the public and the media The use by the IPCC of so-called "grey literature" - that which has not been peer-reviewed or published in scientific journals - has been subjected to particular scrutiny, partly because this type of material was behind the glacier error.

A conflict of interest charge has also been levelled at Dr Pachauri over his business interests.

Speaking at the review's opening session, held in Amsterdam in May, Dr Pachauri admitted his organisation had been ill-prepared and ill-resourced to deal with the recent criticism it has received.

"We have to listen and learn all the time and evolve in a manner that meets the needs of society across the world," he told the review panel.

Critics have previously called on Dr Pachauri to resign, a step the IPCC chair has said he has no intention of making.

Referring to the Himalayas error at an IAC session in Montreal in June, former IPCC chair Professor Robert Watson told the committee: "To me the fundamental problem was that when the error was found it was handled in a totally and utterly atrocious manner."

He added: "The IPCC needs to find a mechanism so that if something needs to be corrected there is a rapid way to get a correction made."

The IAC was established in 2000 to assist in providing evidence-based advice to international bodies such as the United Nations and World Bank.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11126597

Treefarmer

08-30-2010, 05:45 PM

Can of worms.

1. This is a political as well as an environmental as well as a scientific issue.

2. Science when well done, never claims to prove anything. You can disprove things by finding a counter example, but instead of proof an honest scientist says, "this is evidence for such-and-such being true.

I've got a background in Physics, which doesn't make me a climatologist, but at least I don't go glassy eyed quite as fast when reading the papers.

Near as I can figure:

* Yes the world is getting warmer.

* Yes the climate is changing quite rapidly.

* Is the cause man made? Quite likely. However it doesn't really matter if it's man made, natural change, or a mix. With the current population any climate change is a disaster for someone.

The current climate models are approximations. And if you read the reports, the models predict anything from 1 degree to 5 degrees over the next century. None of the models by any reputable scientist that I've heard about is predicting cooling

The role of water and clouds is not well understood. High clouds reflect more light than they trap heat as do thick clouds, and act as a net cooling effect. Thin clouds and low clouds tend to trap heat increasing surface temperatures.

Cloud formation depends on the 'lapse rate' the decrease in average temperature with altitude. Greater lapse rate (colder air at high elevation) increases thick and high cloud formation.

Dust absorbs heat. High altitude dust increases high altitude temperatures, decreasing the lapse rate, which decreases high and thick cloud. But dust also acts as centers for cloud droplets to form which increases high elevation cloud, but not thick clouds

Dust depends on both pollution (coal burning especially) but also on precipitation. Dryer areas produce more dust. Dust also depends on surface winds, which depend on both the lapse rate (higher lapse rate = more wind) and the overall temperature difference between the equator and the poles. (Greater difference = more wind)

Wind is the primary engine driving the big ocean currents. But the ocean is made from water, which can heat or cool air, which affects the local lapse rate, and can add water to the air.

The best models are called "general circulation models" and work on about a 100 km grid 7 layers deep. This isn't enough detail to make good forecasts, or to implement a half decent cloud model in my opinion (worth what you paid for it.)

Based on this I made a deliberate choice to use wood for heat instead of coal. Wood would rot anyway, releasing CO2 back to the atmosphere. In general I think we should attempt to reduce our greenhouse gasses as much as practical, but more signficantly, we need to be ready to deal with the change. The Kyoto accords, which no one shows signs of following would have made about a 5 year delay at the end of a century. It is a bare beginning to what we ought to do.

I'm an optimist regarding ecology. Mom (Nature) is a lot more robust than most people give her credit for. We have had some pretty abrupt changes in the past. Remember that my farm 10,000 years ago was under nearly 2 miles of ice. Some species will go extinct. We may have to be clever and give a bunch a helping hand moving to new places. Even now, one of the things you can do is plant things that are marginal for our present climate. E.g. I grow and sell sugar maple and ponderosa pine, both trees that normally don't grow here at Edmonton, although there are a few ponderosa in Mill creek Ravine and on the U of A campus.

My best guess -- and since I'm not a climate scientist it is really a guess --

1. We are going to get more weird weather. Like the September freeze last fall followed by 2 months of Indian summer. Years with no snow. Years with lots.

2. Overall the average temp is going to go up, but the variation is also going to go up. So there will be both hotter seasons and colder seasons, but there will be more of the hotter ones.

3. Looks like we will get more precipitation. But it's not clear if this will balance the higher needs from the higher temps. Not clear if it will be more summer or more winter precip, but the guesses I've seen lean to more summer.