Entire Antarctic Shelf splitting away from Continent.

[JeffreyS]

Watching special report with Brit Hume on Fox news at the Gym.(just putting the source out there)

Findings by an Australian scientist can't remember her name(I was trying to keep my heart rate up) that the earth has experienced 10 years of slight cooling.  The IPCC a UN group confirmed her findings.  She also said that recent NASA satellite images backed her claim. I am paraphrasing The earth seems to be compensating for the greenhouse gas effects with changing weather patterns and everyone is shocked at the findings.

My thoughts greenhouse gases affect the earth to a smaller degree than the people selling "green" products would have you believe.  They do pollute the earth and with the massive human population we have now we always need to be making strides at preserving the resources of the planet water and air included. I think we should be moving away from fossil fuels even if the sky is not falling.

[gatorback]

Where did you go to school?  You seem to know so much about climatology I'd be willing to bet 10 to 1 you went to GA.  I only went to UF studying under respected researchers that I would never question given they've been studying this for over 30 years. What would these researchers gain from false truths?  Nothing except ridicule from their piers.

[downtownparks]

Here is the story he is refering to.

Climate facts to warm to

Christopher Pearson | March 22, 2008

CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.
Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.

Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."

Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"

Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.

"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."

Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"

Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"

Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."

Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like the implications of this could beconsiderable ..."

Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."

If Marohasy is anywhere near right about the impending collapse of the global warming paradigm, life will suddenly become a whole lot more interesting.

A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly embarrassed. Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience.

With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the fog of millennial gloom will lift, at least until attention turns to the prospect of the next ice age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that is the basis of empiricism will once again be back in fashion. The delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along.

The poorest Indians and Chinese will be left in peace to work their way towards prosperity, without being badgered about the size of their carbon footprint, a concept that for most of us will soon be one with Nineveh and Tyre, clean forgotten in six months.

The scores of town planners in Australia building empires out of regulating what can and can't be built on low-lying shorelines will have to come to terms with the fact inundation no longer impends and find something more plausible to do. The same is true of the bureaucrats planning to accommodate "climate refugees".

Penny Wong's climate mega-portfolio will suddenly be as ephemeral as the ministries for the year 2000 that state governments used to entrust to junior ministers. Malcolm Turnbull will have to reinvent himself at vast speed as a climate change sceptic and the Prime Minister will have to kiss goodbye what he likes to call the great moral issue and policy challenge of our times.

It will all be vastly entertaining to watch.

THE Age published an essay with an environmental theme by Ian McEwan on March 8 and its stablemate, The Sydney Morning Herald, also carried a slightly longer version of the same piece.

The Australian's Cut & Paste column two days later reproduced a telling paragraph from the Herald's version, which suggested that McEwan was a climate change sceptic and which The Age had excised. He was expanding on the proposition that "we need not only reliable data but their expression in the rigorous use of statistics".

What The Age decided to spare its readers was the following: "Well-meaning intellectual movements, from communism to post-structuralism, have a poor history of absorbing inconvenient fact or challenges to fundamental precepts. We should not ignore or suppress good indicators on the environment, though they have become extremely rare now. It is tempting to the layman to embrace with enthusiasm the latest bleak scenario because it fits the darkness of our soul, the prevailing cultural pessimism. The imagination, as Wallace Stevens once said, is always at the end of an era. But we should be asking, or expecting others to ask, for the provenance of the data, the assumptions fed into the computer model, the response of the peer review community, and so on. Pessimism is intellectually delicious, even thrilling, but the matter before us is too serious for mere self-pleasuring. It would be self-defeating if the environmental movement degenerated into a religion of gloomy faith. (Faith, ungrounded certainty, is no virtue.)"

The missing sentences do not appear anywhere else in The Age's version of the essay. The attribution reads: "Copyright Ian McEwan 2008" and there is no acknowledgment of editing by The Age.

Why did the paper decide to offer its readers McEwan lite? Was he, I wonder, consulted on the matter? And isn't there a nice irony that The Age chose to delete the line about ideologues not being very good at "absorbing inconvenient fact"?

[midnightblackrx]

Where did you go to school?  You seem to know so much about climatology I'd be willing to bet 10 to 1 you went to GA.  I only went to UF studying under respected researchers that I would never question given they've been studying this for over 30 years. What would these researchers gain from false truths?  Nothing except ridicule from their piers.

Why is it that personal insults are made when the possibility of another side is mentioned? Let's just step back and see what's going on before spending trillions on trying to reverse a cycle in the Earth's climate that may or may not be even occuring? 

[JeffreyS]

Where did you go to school?  You seem to know so much about climatology I'd be willing to bet 10 to 1 you went to GA.  I only went to UF studying under respected researchers that I would never question given they've been studying this for over 30 years. What would these researchers gain from false truths?  Nothing except ridicule from their piers.

Why is it that personal insults are made when the possibility of another side is mentioned? Let's just step back and see what's going on before spending trillions on trying to reverse a cycle in the Earth's climate that may or may not be even occuring? 

Personal insults are made because some people on both sides are emotionally and or politically invested in the truth being what they say it is. If it was just an honest disagreement they wouldn't need to go down that road.

What would these researchers gain from false truths?  Nothing except ridicule from their piers.

.

Scary position to be in professionally.

[RiversideGator]

Another problem strikes the Global Warming community:  the missing heat.  Read more about it here:

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat

by Richard Harris

Morning Edition, March 19, 2008 · Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.

This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.

In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.

"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."

In recent years, heat has actually been flowing out of the ocean and into the air. This is a feature of the weather phenomenon known as El Nino. So it is indeed possible the air has warmed but the ocean has not. But it's also possible that something more mysterious is going on.

That becomes clear when you consider what's happening to global sea level. Sea level rises when the oceans get warm because warmer water expands. This accounts for about half of global sea level rise. So with the oceans not warming, you would expect to see less sea level rise. Instead, sea level has risen about half an inch in the past four years. That's a lot.

Willis says some of this water is apparently coming from a recent increase in the melting rate of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica.

"But in fact there's a little bit of a mystery. We can't account for all of the sea level increase we've seen over the last three or four years," he says.

One possibility is that the sea has, in fact, warmed and expanded â€" and scientists are somehow misinterpreting the data from the diving buoys.

But if the aquatic robots are actually telling the right story, that raises a new question: Where is the extra heat all going?

Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says it's probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet.

That can't be directly measured at the moment, however.

"Unfortunately, we don't have adequate tracking of clouds to determine exactly what role they've been playing during this period," Trenberth says.

It's also possible that some of the heat has gone even deeper into the ocean, he says. Or it's possible that scientists need to correct for some other feature of the planet they don't know about. It's an exciting time, though, with all this new data about global sea temperature, sea level and other features of climate.

"I suspect that we'll able to put this together with a little bit more perspective and further analysis," Trenberth says. "But what this does is highlight some of the issues and send people back to the drawing board."

Trenberth and Willis agree that a few mild years have no effect on the long-term trend of global warming. But they say there are still things to learn about how our planet copes with the heat.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

[RiversideGator]

Global average surface temperatures have been in stasis for some time now and are dropping for 2008 thus far.  Accordingly, Al Gore, ever the huckster, is now calling global warming "climate crisis" as he rushes from meeting to meeting in his SUV:

Gore And Bloomberg Meet (Again)

The DN's Adam Lisberg reports:

Al Gore came to City Hall for an unannounced hour-long private meeting with Mayor Bloomberg. Here's what he said afterward as we chased him out the door:

bloomberg-gore-blog533

    "It was a private conversation, but it was at my request to talk to him about efforts to solve the climate crisis. I've been a big fan of Mayor Bloomberg's outspoken advocacy of solving the climate crisis, and we've talked several times in the past, and I enjoyed this conversation. It was a private conversation, but [there's] nothing mysterious about it, just ways of working effectively to solve the climate crisis."


    "There are a bunch of activities underway ... and I chair a group called the Alliance for Climate Protection, and we're pushing very hard to get solutions to the climate crisis. But thank you all."


He ducked every political question after that, smiling and laughing and saying:

    "Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. I have no comment. Thanks anyway. I am focused on trying to solve the climate crisis. ... Thank you. Great talking to you guys. Bye-bye."


And he hopped into the back of a black Lexus SUV, which he said was a hybrid, and left.

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2008/03/gore-and-bloomberg-meet-again.html

[jaxnative]

The Schizophrenic’s Guide to “Global” Warming (1894-2008)

Posted By Ben-Peter Terpstra On April 14, 2008 @ 4:55 am In Environment, Animal Rights, Health Issues, & Drugs |

The media reports on "climate change."

In 1954, the Associated Press matter-of-factly reported that:

. . . Dr. Joseph Kaplan, UCLA professor and chairman of the U.S. Committee for the 1957 International Geophysical Year, has predicted that ocean levels will rise at least 40 feet and inundate vast areas of the earth in the next 50 or 60 years unless atmospheric temperatures can be controlled. 

The 54-year-old scientist said the burning of fuels is of such magnitude that discharged gasses are creating a "greenhouse" effect over the earth.

Should the oceans rise by 40 feet, their waters would cover parts of New York City, San Francisco, much of Florida, sections of Tokyo and many other coastal cities.

The solution?

Heat control is the answer to the threat, Dr. Kaplan said. "We're working on a method of controlling man's environment and the temperature of the world," he reported. "We've already, fired rockets into the upper atmosphere and discharged chemicals that affect the temperature of the atmosphere.

"Control by man of the earth's weather and temperature is within the realm of practicality now.

"The end result of our studies (of temperature control) will be more important to the survival of man than atomic energy."

In other words, humans are gods. I mean, even Democrats boast about plans to control the earth’s weather and temperature. Or, liberals are tricknologists. But, in any event, some possible follow-up questions are:

In 2008, do New Yorkers really believe that the ocean levels will soon rise to 40 feet?

Is much of Florida doomed?

How many professors liked to use coke in the 1950s?

Do liberal North Americans have a history of trying to control populations through junk science? 

The last question, of course, is the easiest to answer. Still, I’ll let history speak now.

The Media’s “Climate Change” Narrative 1894-2008

1894: September 6, “The Ice Age In North America . . . But now a change has come upon the forces . . . and the long winter is drawing to a close” (Cambridge City Tribune & Harper’s Magazine)

1912: October 7, “Fifth Ice Age Is On the Way” (Los Angeles Times)

1913: March 23, “How and Why Earth Will End: Scientists Believe Our Universe Will Some Day Plunge Into Sun” (Washington Post, Chicago Tribune)

1920: September 21, “Mac Millian Kills New Ice Age Theory: Earth May Be Entering Its Golden Years (Syracuse Herald)

1923: “Scientists Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada” (Chicago Tribune)

1924: September 18, “Mac Millian Reports Signs of New Ice Age” (New York Times)

1926: August 15, “THE sun is sick [say international scientists], and the world is about to enter . . . a new glacier period” (The Zanesville Times Signal â€" Ohio)

1933: 27 March, “America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise” (New York Times)

1934: 27 September, “Predicts New Ice Age For America: Savant Says It Will Come in 10,000 Years (International News Service, Herald-Times, PA)

1939: “[The] weather men have no doubt the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” (TIME)

1952: August 10, “Our Changing Climate . . . the world has been getting warmer in the last half century” (New York Times)

1954: “Climate â€" the Heat May be Off . . . Despite all you may have read, heard or imagined, it’s been growing cooler â€" not warmer since the Thirties” (Fortune)

1957: April 9, “Control of Temperature Said Vital” (Associated Press, Union-Bulletin)

1958: August 8, “Ice Age Return Is Seen In U.S.” (Portland Oregonian Editor, The Salisbury Times)

1958: September, “The Coming Ice Age” (Harper’s)

1959: February 15, “A Warmer Earth Evident At Poles” (New York Times)

1961: March 9, “Don’t Say We Didn’t Give You Fair Warning: The Ice Age Cometh” (The Ada Weekly News)*

1962: April 13, “Arctic Deals Blow to Ice Age Theories” (New York Times news service)

1969: February 20, “Expert Says Arctic Ocean Will Soon Be Open Sea” (New York Times)

1970: April 22, “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age” (Washington Post)

1971: July 9, “U.S. Scientists See New Ice Age Coming” (Washington Post)

1973: April 14, “The Earth Is Cooling, Return of Ice Age Is Feared” (Iowa City Press Citizen)

1974: “It [the New Ice Age] is the root cause of a lot of that unpleasant weather around the world and they warn that it carries the potential for human disasters of unprecedented magnitude” (Fortune)

1974: June 24, “Another Ice Age?” (TIME)

1975: “The Ice Age Cometh” (Science News)

1975: “[T]he world’s climatologists agreed . . . Once the freeze starts, it will be too late” (Douglas Colligan, Science Digest)

1975: April 28, “The Cooling World . . . The drop in food output could begin . . . soon” (Newsweek) 

1975: May 21, “Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing: A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable” (New York Times)

1975: June, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of death . . .” (Nigel Calder, International Wildlife Journal)

1981: March 31, “Long-range forecast: snow, ice for 114,000 years . . . Earth’s current warm period ending . . . new ice age could last 114,000 years say scientists” (AP) 

1981: August 24, “Scientists predict melting icecaps next century . . . With a slow growth of fossil fuel use temperatures would go up about 4.5 degrees F . . . with a rapid increase . . . 5 to 8 degrees” (U.P.) 

1981: November 25, “Warming of World can involve many gases” (UPI)

1982: “‘Volcano dust may cool Earth 2 years’ . . . Dust from Mexican volcano will produce a cooling effect around the Earth for the next two years, the National Oceanic Administration estimates” (AP)

1983: October 22, “The good news is Canadian winters may moderate . . . A predicted warming . . . will moderate Canada’s bitter waters. Prince Edward Island will likely be cut in half” (CP)

1990: April 16, “Global Warming: Pollutants turn Earth into ecological hothouse” (Syracuse Herald-Journal)

1994: January 31, “The Ice Age Cometh?”  (TIME)

2000: April-May, “How to Prevent a Meltdown: Answers to global warming are in the wind” (TIME)

2004: December 26, “Undeniable Global Warming” (Washington Post)

2005: December 27, “Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming” (New York Times)

2006: January 29, “Debate on Climate Shifts to Issue of Irreparable Change: Some Experts on Global Warming Foresee ‘Tipping Point’ When It Is Too Late To Act” (Washington Post)

2006: July 24, “Global Warming Signed, Sealed, and Delivered Scientists Agree: The Earth . . . warming, and human activities are the principal cause” (Los Angeles Times) 

2006, July, “Mostly cooler and wetter than normal this July in Alaska” (Alaska Monthly Summary)

2006: December, “Global Cooling Plan: It’s now clear that climate change threatens to warm the planet but to ice the world economy” (Newsweek: Special Edition) 

2007: February 10, “From Bad to Worse: Earth’s Warming to Accelerate” (Science News) 

2007: April 9, “Global Warming: What Now? Our feverish planet badly needs a cure” (TIME)

2007: May 28, “The Brooding Omnipresence of Global Warming” (Harper’s)

2007: August 6, “A warmer world creates new iceberg ecology . . . But now marine biologists have a more positive take on the . . . icebergs that have broken free” (TIME)

2008: January 14, “Snow Storm Hits New England: First Major Snow Drops Heavy Snow; Emergencies Declared, Hundreds of Schools Closed” (CBS/AP)

2008: February 11, “China On Ice . . . Blizzards have cost the economy at least 3 billion . . . Snow Crash. Storms have caused widespread damage and disruption throughout the country” (TIME)

* Note: This satirical 1961 piece pokes fun at Harper’s “New Ice Age” story (1960).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from Intellectual Conservative Politics and Philosophy: http://www.intellectualconservative.com

URL to article: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/04/14/the-schizophrenic%e2%80%99s-guide-to-%e2%80%9cglobal%e2%80%9d-warming-1894-2008/

[Lunican]

That reads like a RiversideGator / stephendare thread.

I'm sure you could compile a similar list of articles written this year alone.

[RiversideGator]

Even China is ahead of us on this.

Considering that China is the world's worst polluter, I am hardly impressed with their newfound commitment to the environment.  BTW, the operative phrase in your piece is as follows:

the Chinese plan does not include any concrete goals for reducing emissions

[Charleston native]

Just in time that up here in Cola, in mid-April, we're getting freeze warnings. What makes these warnings so unique is that usually they're frost warnings (where temperatures are a bit warmer), but now they're expecting close to freezing temperatures. In the South. In mid-April.

[Lunican]

I thought it was settled that climate and weather are two separate things?

[RiversideGator]

I was discussing the situation using your parameters.  And, using your parameters, the Chinese are doing nothing.  And, there is obviously such a thing as pollution and the Chinese are the kings of it nowdays.

BTW, I buy as little Chinese made merchandise as possible.  Thanks for attempting to speak for me though in your own lefty, sarcastic way.   

[Charleston native]

I thought it was settled that climate and weather are two separate things?

No, I always thought they were inter-related. Besides, wasn't man-made global climate change said to be the impetus for weather disasters and weather changes per Al Goracle?

[RiversideGator]

I was discussing the situation using your parameters.  And, using your parameters, the Chinese are doing nothing.  And, there is obviously such a thing as pollution and the Chinese are the kings of it nowdays.

BTW, I buy as little Chinese made merchandise as possible.  Thanks for attempting to speak for me though in your own lefty, sarcastic way.   

Sure you do.

The all-knowing midway speaks for me again.