67
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 01:28 pm
Oralloy, since you provide no sources, and apparently have no very clear idea of what's going on, it's hard to comment on it. However glaciologists say more than 90% of the world's glaciers and icecaps are meling more than they are replenished every winter, including the two biggest ice masses, Greenland and Antarctica, the Arctic ice cap has hit historic lows for the last several years, and the denser multiyear ice that used to comprise it has fallen by around 2/3, to be replaced by thinner, quicker melting annual ice. There are a few glaciers increasing due to localized conditions of altitude, winds, and precipitation, but they are few and only a local effect.

Further, the guy in charge of a lot of the Cascades research says the glaciers there are melting and two have in fact melted totally in recent years and turned into a lake.

http://www.nichols.edu/departments/glacier/glacier_retreat.htm

So what exactly do you think it is that you;re talking about?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 01:46 pm
@oralloy,
You have failed to provide any information on your update of dementia.


The point I was making oralloy is there is no evidence of anyone supressing data from the Cascades. You are begging the question when you ask for an update on something that isn't in evidence. Clearly you need a tin foil hat because you are using a logical falacy and then pretending you didn't do it.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 12:55 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
So what exactly do you think it is that you;re talking about?




Quote:
A group of us noted that the snowpack in the Cascades was NOT rapidly melting away, in contrast to some publications by some local climate scientists and publicized by Mayor Nickels. The reaction was intense. One of my colleagues, Mark Albright, who was the first to notice the lack of snowpack loss was fired as associate State Climatologist and the media went wild...we called it Snowpackgate...and it got national attention. I was told in the hallways to keep quiet about it...the denier types would take advantage of it!

We then wrote a paper on the subject (the main contributor being Mark Stoelinga) and submitted it to the Journal of Climate. I have published a lot of papers in my life (roughly 100) and I never had problems like we had with this paper. Very biased associate editor and some reviewers. Four review cycles and it was about to be turned down, until we appealed to the editor, who proved fair and reasonable. This paper has now been accepted for publication, but it really revealed to me the bias in the system. Here is the paper if you are interested:

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-pdf&doi=10.1175%2F2009JCLI2911.1

Poor papers with significant technical problems, but reflecting the "official" line, get published easily, while papers indicating the global warming is weaker or delayed, go through hurdle after hurdle.

I have heard case after case of similar treatment...so this is no anomaly.


http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2009/12/climategate.html



Quote:
For example, climatologist John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville accepts that global warming is happening, but he says there is a lot of uncertainty about its causes and impacts. He says he has trouble getting some of his results published.

"I've done a pretty thorough study of snowfall of the Southern Sierra mountains of California, and the Southern Sierra find no downward trend in snowfall," he says.

That's important because snowfall is forecast to decline because of global warming, and that would seriously affect California's water supply. Christy says he has tried three times to get his paper published. So far, it's been rejected, and he suspects it's because scientists are trying to stifle his message.

"Everyone from the secretary of Energy [on down] who has talked about the snowfall in the Sierra going away will not find any comfort in the fact that the trends in snowfall are essentially zero for the last hundred years," he says.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120846593
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 03:49 am
Did you actually read the abstract of the paper they wrote, oralloy? It says, very clearly, that the icepack IS decreasing, and, removing causes of interdecadal variability, that it has been melting for the last eighty years. They attribute 9% of the melting to anthropogenic causes. That is a definite outlier on the results that many others have gotten. But he does think the skeptics are wrong, and in his blog, which you citehe says that anthropogenic climate change is happening and is real. And, I might add, the question of whether snowfall is decreasing or not is not the particularly relevant question. It is whether or not the glaciers are melting. You can have the same amount of snowfall and the snowpack and glacier ice will still melt at a faster rate if the temperature rises. And the glaciers and snowpack do seem to be melting. And your authors say the onset of melt has begun on average five days earlier.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 08:24 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
What ever came of those scientists' efforts to cover up the fact that snow levels in the Cascades are increasing?


It's interesting that the paper you reference says the snow pack is decreasing over a 70 year period in the Cascades and not statistically significant enough to tell a trend over the short term.

That was why I was confused by your statement oralloy. I am still confused by your statement since you still haven't shown any effort to cover up an increase in snow levels. Do you really think we should include all statistics that are not significant when we talk about trends?
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 12:47 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Did you actually read the abstract of the paper they wrote, oralloy?


I glanced at it. But my complaint is not over what level the snow is. My complaint is the way legitimate scientists are having their data suppressed because it is politically inconvenient.



MontereyJack wrote:
It says, very clearly, that the icepack IS decreasing, and, removing causes of interdecadal variability, that it has been melting for the last eighty years. They attribute 9% of the melting to anthropogenic causes. That is a definite outlier on the results that many others have gotten. But he does think the skeptics are wrong, and in his blog, which you cite he says that anthropogenic climate change is happening and is real. And, I might add, the question of whether snowfall is decreasing or not is not the particularly relevant question. It is whether or not the glaciers are melting. You can have the same amount of snowfall and the snowpack and glacier ice will still melt at a faster rate if the temperature rises. And the glaciers and snowpack do seem to be melting. And your authors say the onset of melt has begun on average five days earlier.


None of that makes it OK to suppress the legitimate data that those scientists are producing.

Suppression of legitimate data isn't fair to the scientists who are producing the data.

Suppression of legitimate data skews the science and makes the end result less accurate than it could have been.

And suppression of legitimate data gives people who don't like the resulting conclusions a great opportunity to dismiss them out of hand.

It's just bad.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 12:54 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
That was why I was confused by your statement oralloy. I am still confused by your statement since you still haven't shown any effort to cover up an increase in snow levels.


I doubt you are confused. It's just more of the mind games you were playing when I was asking how the cover-up turned out and you were demanding that I "prove" my question.



parados wrote:
Do you really think we should include all statistics that are not significant when we talk about trends?


The data is very significant. It is just politically inconvenient.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 01:39 pm
@oralloy,
The article that you state was suppressed clearly states the data was not significant from a statistical standpoint.
oralloy
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 08:04 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
The article that you state was suppressed clearly states the data was not significant from a statistical standpoint.


No, it states that the change was not statistically significant. That does not mean the data isn't significant.

Can I assume from all this, that the answer to my original question is that everything has been neatly swept under the rug?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 10:12 pm
@oralloy,
Change that wasn't significant is not what you asked about.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 May, 2012 09:17 pm
Just read this article in the Guardian (UK).
Interesting, discovering, bit by bit, where these "independent think tanks", like the Heartland Institute, receive their funding from.
And watching corporate funders, one by one, withdraw their funding once their connections to these dubious think tanks are publicly exposed. (I've been reading about ALEC's activities & its funders on FreeDuck's thread.)

In this case, Heartland's advertising compared people who believe that climate change is occurring to mass murderers. (!)

This is the same think tank which has plans to promote "an alternative climate change curriculum" in US schools.
Incredible & really worrying that schools should be subject to such pressure to change their curriculum from a source like this.

How much real influence does an organization like Heartland actually have with the US public & with the federal & state governments?

Quote:
Diageo to end funding of Heartland Institute after climate change outburst
Leo Hickman
Guardian.co.uk, Sunday 6 May 2012 17.15 BST


Firm has 'no plans' to work with thinktank following campaign comparing people concerned about climate to mass murderers

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pixies/2012/5/6/1336320545961/Ted-Kaczynski-008.jpg
Ted Kaczynski was shown on a billboard alongside the caption: “I still believe in global warming. Do you?” Photograph: Elaine Thompson/AP

Diageo, one of the world's largest drinks companies, has announced it will no longer fund the Heartland Institute, a rightwing US thinktank which briefly ran a billboard campaign this week comparing people concerned about climate change to mass murderers and terrorists such as Osama bin Laden, Charles Manson and Ted Kaczynski.

On Thursday, a billboard appeared over the Eisenhower Expressway in Illinois showing a picture of Kaczynski, the Unabomber, who in 1996 was convicted of a 17-year mail bombing campaign that killed three people and injured dozens. The caption read: "I still believe in global warming. Do you?" A day later it was withdrawn.

The London-based drinks giant, which owns brands such as Guinness, Smirnoff, Johnnie Walker and Moët & Chandon, said this year that it was "reviewing any further association with Heartland" following the release online of internal Heartland documents which revealed its corporate donors as well as a plan to promote an alternative climate change curriculum in US schools. Following the widespread outcry triggered by Heartland's billboards, a Diageo spokeswoman told the Guardian: "Diageo vigorously opposes climate scepticism and our actions are proof of this. Diageo's only association with the Heartland Institute was limited to a small contribution made two years ago specifically related to an excise tax issue. Diageo has no plans to work with the Heartland Institute in the future."

In February, a US scientist, Peter Gleick, admitted obtaining and publishing internal Heartland documents which showed that Diageo had given the thinktank $10,000 (£6,190) in 2010. The documents, one of which Heartland later claimed was a fake, said the thinktank was expecting another $10,000 from Diageo this year.

On Friday, Heartland, which is trying to promote its annual conference for climate sceptics, to be held in Chicago this month, said it was withdrawing the billboard campaign. However, it refused to apologise, claiming the campaign was an "experiment". Its website is still hosting the original press release, which includes the claim that the "most prominent advocates of global warming aren't scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen."

Microsoft, which has a policy of supplying free software to all non-profit organisations in the US, posted a blog on its website on Saturday distancing itself from Heartland. The thinktank received software from Microsoft worth $59,908 in 2011. The blog said: "Microsoft believes climate change is a serious issue that demands immediate, worldwide attention and we are acting accordingly … The Heartland Institute does not speak for Microsoft on climate change. In fact, the Heartland Institute's position on climate change is diametrically opposed to Microsoft's position. And we completely disagree with the group's inflammatory and distasteful advertising campaign."

In March, General Motors, the world's largest carmaker, said it was ending its funding of Heartland after 20 years owing to the thinktank's hardline climate scepticism


http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/may/06/diageo-end-funding-heartland-institute
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2012 10:58 am
@msolga,
It appears that the thought police are out in force to crush any who don't accept the conventional orthodoxy.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2012 11:16 am
@georgeob1,
In an argument of science vs propaganda, which side do you want to be on george?

By the way, science is easy to dispute if you can actually find the science to do so. The overwhelming science supports that global warming exists. The propagandists can't seem to be able to come up with their own overwhelming science. They can only niggle around the edges.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2012 12:41 pm
@parados,
I'll wager I know a lot more about the science involved than do you. There is a general consensus that some warming has occurred and it is likely due to GHG accumulation in the atmosphere. However the science indicates a lot less of it than the catastrophe fictions the zealots are trying to impose on us. Moreover, as Bjorn Lundberg and others have amply illustrated, the cost of dealing with it will be orders of magnitude less than the cost associated with the remedies being proposed. We're still in an interglacial period geologically and that hasn't changed. Even the credulous Europeans are discovering that the billions they have spent on wind power are simply not economically sustainable.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2012 12:46 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
There is a general consensus that some warming has occurred and it is likely due to GHG accumulation in the atmosphere. However the science indicates a lot less of it than the catastrophe fictions the zealots are trying to impose on us

Are you saying the warming is less than what has occurred? Your statement doesn't even make much sense. "It" must refer back to the warming that has occurred if you follow any grammatical rules at all. To argue that the warming is less than has occurred is not scientifically possible.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2012 02:33 pm
@parados,
You really are a pedantic dunce !

I'll spell it out for you in a few selected words from my post.

Some warming has occurred, but far less of it than is implied in the catastrophe scenarios (or even the short term predictions) of the AGW zealots.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2012 04:07 pm
@georgeob1,
Your inability to write coherently doesn't make me pedantic. Although dunce does come to mind while we are talking about your writing.
0 Replies
 
Dopey goat
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Oct, 2012 04:49 pm
@woiyo,
"earth sciences" you mean that class you took when you were thirteen andjust starting highschool?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Oct, 2012 05:03 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
I'll wager I know a lot more about the science involved than do you.


I hope you don't thing George that you are claiming any expertise in science with that remark.

Quote:
Even the credulous Europeans are discovering that the billions they have spent on wind power are simply not economically sustainable.


We are simply trying to prevent those billions getting into the hands of women.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 30 Nov, 2012 09:53 am
Antarctica, Greenland ice definitely melting into sea, and speeding up, experts warn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 09/29/2020 at 11:21:56