Global Warming Link to Drowned Polar Bears BUSTED!!

Tuesday, November 15th 2011, 7:49 AM EST Co2sceptic (Site Admin)

Arctic was nearly ice-free in the first Holocene Warm Period

Perhaps the silliest thing about the modern global warming debate is that we’re trying to evaluate major climate changes in eye-blinks of time such as 10 or 30 years. The big Ice Age cycle lasts about 90,000 years, the last one ended about 12,000 years ago. El Ninos last a year of two and change nothing, climate-wise. The Weather Channel can (sort of) predict ten days out.

Yet the UN panel’s claims of man-made warming are based on an “unprecedented warming” that was only 22 years long, 1976–1998. There’s been no trace of a warming trend since. There was, however, an earlier “unprecedented warming” from 1915–1940—before the Industrial Revolution started seriously raising the C02 levels.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php
 
Mapper said:
Some Shasta glaciers have long been a known anomaly (but the tide is turning) and there is a small glacier forming the north aspect (shaded from the sun) of the south crater rim at St. Helens, post eruption, the Himalayan typo is a known, admitted and subsequently corrected error etc, etc, etc,. Detractors know about these anomalies because they are openly discussed in the scientific body of literature. Then the blogosphere exploitation begins.

Uh huh, the infamous needle in a haystack argument. There are very few absolutes in the world and you will always find exceptions to the rule. Haggle over the small intricacies while ignoring the larger conclusion. Exploit community admitted errors as falsehoods. Read and believe what you want.
Click to expand...
Global warming is real. It's been happening since the last ice age!
 
Some Shasta glaciers have long been a known anomaly (but the tide is turning) and there is a small glacier forming the north aspect (shaded from the sun) of the south crater rim at St. Helens, post eruption, the Himalayan typo is a known, admitted and subsequently corrected error etc, etc, etc,. Detractors know about these anomalies because they are openly discussed in the scientific body of literature. Then the blogosphere exploitation begins.

Uh huh, the infamous needle in a haystack argument. There are very few absolutes in the world and you will always find exceptions to the rule. Haggle over the small intricacies while ignoring the larger conclusion. Exploit community admitted errors as falsehoods. Read and believe what you want.
 
Glaciers/sunspots/atmospheric vapor/sea ice/atmospheric temperature flux/polar bear habitat/trace gas contamination/observed seasonal burial of some airplanes at one location...which proxy are we working on here?

Glaciers come in a variety of shapes and sizes, they also exist in a variety of locations....and therefore respond in myriad different ways. Every glacier receives a different amount of snowfall/precip and solar radiation and goes through many potential melt/freeze cycles per year depending on the local conditions (which is why layer data is usually sourced from polar regions which have fewer cylces).

Also core stratigraphy (mud/ice/radio carbon rock etc.) is calibrated through the use of known paleo (happened long ago) planetary events (i.e. eruptions and associated dust) that are evidenced in multiple proxies at multiple global locations. That said, one could draw any conclusion they wanted to be observing random events and melt cycles on any random glacier. It's the patterns observed across multiple different glaciers in different locations from which many conclusion are drawn/predicted. This is how one achieves statistical relevance that is an integral aspect of the peer review process.

Greenland and the Antarctic Ice Sheets are the largest freshwater stores. All the "small glaciers and ice caps" don't even come close to storing the massive quantity of ice/water that these large ice sheets and their associated outlet glaciers store. Thinning of the Greenland Ice Sheet is unprecedented.
 
Mapper said:
A person could spend the whole day posting on this issue and those who disagree will continue to disagree no matter what you show them.
http://icecorelab.science.oregonstate.edu/content/pubs
Click to expand...

Where is the link to the peer reviewed article? The Register article merely confirms that pinpointing the exact amount of the effects is difficult and cannot be proven until it happens...an unfortunate reality of trying to model something in the future. The conclusion at the end of the article states that warming will not occur unfettered in the future. Absolutely correct, there are feedback mechanisms...when do they kick in under a scenario of unprecedented greenhouse gas release?

The last link has some very relevant information, most of which is thoroughly addressed by most recent climate literature and included in IPCC reports.

The Volokh Conspriacy is a website that hardly even functions as a website...check the links. This is what the "about" link displays[h=2]"About[/h]

The Volokh Conspiracy is a group blog. Most of us are law professors."



 
to add to last post


Professor Jaworowski summarizes with a most interesting statement:
It is astonishing how credulously the scientific community and the public have accepted the clearly flawed interpretations of glacier studies as evidence of anthropogenic increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Further historians can use this case as a warning about how politics can negatively influence science.
​
 
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/


NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/

http://volokh.com/2010/01/30/climategate-scientists-conduct-unethical-and-illegal/

It took only 46 years to bury the planes in over 260 feet (~80 meters) of ice and move them some 3 miles from their original location. This translates into a little over 5 ½ feet (~1.7 meters) of ice or around 17 feet (~5 meters) of compact snow per year and about 100 meters of movement per year. In a telephone interview, Bob Cardin was asked how many layers of ice were above the recovered airplane. He responded by saying, “Oh, there were many hundreds of layers of ice above the airplane.” When told that each layer was supposed to represent one year of time, Bob said, “That is impossible! Each of those layers is a different warm spell – warm, cold, warm, cold, warm, cold.” [SUP]21[/SUP] Also, the planes did not sink in the ice over time as some have suggested. Their density was less than the ice or snow since they were not filled with the snow, but remained hollow. They were in fact buried by the annual snowfall over the course of almost 50 years.


According to Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland, the ice core data is not only contaminated by procedural problems, it is also manipulated in order to fit popular theories of the day. Jaworowski first argues that ice cores do not fulfill the essential criteria of a closed system.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/ancientice.html
 
I know people always want proof, links etc. A person could spend the whole day posting on this issue and those who disagree will continue to disagree no matter what you show them.

However, for those with further interest. Here's one link to a list of pubs from students/scientists I know personally from previous work. I've seen their houses, cars etc and I can tell you they aren't "getting rich" on this stuff. As always, a whole host of information and citations can be found by visiting the IPCC website and the hundreds of related papers by thousands of scientists.

Just as an aside, the vast majority of statistical approaches used in meteorology and atmospheric science are the same things used by professional traders...that said, the accuracy of the results when used in meteorology/atmos. sci. is generally much higher than when used to "predict" markets. If these scientists wanted to make more money they could, more or less with one hand tied behind their back, apply their mathematical/statistical/computational/programming skills to the market.

Lots of trace gas work with methane because CH4 can be used with gas chromatography to obtain secondary confirmation of CO2.

http://icecorelab.science.oregonstate.edu/content/pubs


 
nasa1974 said:
I'm not sure we can point the finger at the human race for global warming. Are we responsible for pushing the temperature up a little? Probably!! But we have only been keeping weather records for about 150 years or so. How do we know that this isn't some kind of cycle. Look at the increase in earthquakes. Is that our fault also. Anyway, if we do not smarten up we will kill ourselves off soon enough through stupidity and pollution. As stewards of this plant we are doing one terrible job.
Click to expand...

Proxy records of CO2 can be used for significantly longer periods. Up to 800,000+ years in the case of deep ice cores. On shorter time scales multiple proxies show correlated global CO2 values. Short and long term cycles are evident, even small amplitude seasonal variations in CO2 can be found, particularly in the Norther Hemisphere that correspond with human heating in the winter (wood burning, etc). The rise in CO2 beginning in the 19th and 20th centuries shows an unprecedented rate...therein lies the threat. It's quite clear in the research that is reviewed and accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. Natural systems adapt to environmental fluctuation, natural feedbacks. The current trajectory of CO2 rise is unprecedented in proxy records. What does that mean for related feedbacks (reductions in reflective snow/ice, temp changes, shorter winters, more extreme temperatures, intensification of the water cycle, etc)? We will see what happens as CO2 has already moved well above "normal" deviations. Quite the experiment!

The acceptance of this research is literally unprecedented. It would be as the vast majority of politicians COMPLETELY agreed on how to fix the economy. The detractors, however, have a very large soap box building fund and lots of monied reasons to shut their eyes and ears.
 
I'm not sure we can point the finger at the human race for global warming. Are we responsible for pushing the temperature up a little? Probably!! But we have only been keeping weather records for about 150 years or so. How do we know that this isn't some kind of cycle. Look at the increase in earthquakes. Is that our fault also. Anyway, if we do not smarten up we will kill ourselves off soon enough through stupidity and pollution. As stewards of this plant we are doing one terrible job.
 
FAB1 said:
FWM you just don't get it that globull warming is nothing but a money scam on the level of Dr. curealls patent medicine. Its people who swallow anything that continue to empower these snakeoil salesmen. Now there are billions. at stake that climate change isn't going away. pure bs
Click to expand...

AMEN! bro..+1
 
FWM you just don't get it that globull warming is nothing but a money scam on the level of Dr. curealls patent medicine. Its people who swallow anything that continue to empower these snakeoil salesmen. Now there are billions. at stake that climate change isn't going away. pure bs
 
FireWeatherMet said:
Seriously,

You guys need to take an on-line earth science class...and lay off the Fox News/Big Oil supply of paid scientific consultants.

For every one "skeptic" article with unorthodox science, often by non climatologists, you can find dozens of more sound scientific articles that show conclusive proof of warming in most parts of the world.

Climate change is here...thanks to us and the combustible engine. It is what it is.
Heck, the likely republican nominee for president (Romney) even agrees.

But I'm sure the "Rick Perry Institute for Higher Education" can have its researchers come up with a skeptics paper.;)
Click to expand...

Let's see... you just bagged on everyone about needing to learn science then referred to it as the combustible engine?

It's combustion engine weather boy.

How's about you apologize to the nice people...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top