Global warming means longer allergy seasons: study

Feb 21, 2011

Ragweed allergy season in North America has grown two to four weeks longer in recent years because of warmer temperatures and later fall frosts, researchers said.

Northern parts of the United States and Canada have seen the most dramatic rise in allergy season length between 1995 and 2009, said the study to be published in Tuesday's edition of the .

The city of Saskatoon in Saskatchewan, Canada saw the longest pollen season, adding 27 more days in 2009 compared to 1995. Winnipeg, Manitoba saw a 25-day increase during the same period.

Fargo, North Dakota and Minneapolis, Minnesota each saw allergy seasons extend 16 days. But looking further south, Rogers, Arkansas and Georgetown, Texas saw decreases of several says in their pollen seasons.

The study said the starker changes in the northern latitudes were consistent with the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projections of more intense warming in areas closer to the Arctic.

"Latitudinal effects on increasing season length were associated primarily with a delay in first frost of the fall season and lengthening of the frost-free period," the study said.

"Overall, these data indicate a significant increase in the length of the ragweed pollen season by as much as 13-27 days at latitudes above 44 degrees north since 1995."

Scientists used pollen measurements from the US National bureau and Canada's Aerobiology Research Laboratories, combined with data from US weather stations, Environment Canada and the Canadian National Climate Data and Information Archive.

Ragweed allergies, often called hayfever, strike as many as 30 percent of Americans, typically in warmer seasons. Symptoms range from sneezing and sniffling to severe asthma.

The culprit is a family of plants belonging to the genus Ambrosia, whose flowers send off tiny grains of pollen that the body recognizes as a threat.

Explore further: Spain defends Canaries oil drilling plan

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Hay fever season peaking

Sep 03, 2007

Last month's downpour in the Midwest has triggered an increase in mold spores but dampened the U.S. pollen count -- at least temporarily.

Hold that tissue: Allergy help may be on the way

Feb 13, 2009

It isn’t beach weather in most of the United States right now, but it’s never too early to be thinking about spring and summer. Unfortunately, for people with allergies, today’s daydreams can turn into ...

Nothing to sneeze at: Real-time pollen forecasts

Dec 22, 2008

Researchers in Germany are reporting an advance toward development of technology that could make life easier for millions of people allergic to plant pollen. It could underpin the first automated, real-time ...

Recommended for you

Study shows no lead pollution in oilsands region

20 hours ago

New research from a world-renowned soil and water expert at the University of Alberta reveals that there's no atmospheric lead pollution in Alberta's oilsands region—a finding that contradicts current scientific ...

User comments : 171

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

apex01
2.1 / 5 (14) Feb 21, 2011
Means more land and time to grow food as well.
Sean_W
2.4 / 5 (17) Feb 21, 2011
We're doomed.

Oh, and...

WOLF!!!!!!!!!
ShotmanMaslo
3.3 / 5 (12) Feb 21, 2011
How can flooding and ocean rise mean more land?
ubavontuba
2.4 / 5 (17) Feb 21, 2011
1995 - 2009? Really? This is expired data. Since 2007, there's been a significant tunabout to colder temperatures:

"The "Blizzard of 2007" was described by many residents (of Saskatoon) as the worst they had seen and paralyzed the city with its low visibility, extreme cold and large volume of snow."

http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saskatoon

And can you say, "C-c-c-c-cold!"

http:/www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/story.html?id=e25537cf-e677-4c20-a61c-8584a406604d
kaasinees
3.4 / 5 (13) Feb 21, 2011
Yet another person who doesnt understand the concept, global.

Ignorant bunch of fools. Meet my friend pain.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.6 / 5 (14) Feb 21, 2011
Means more land and time to grow food as well.


Meanwile, back her on Planet Reality.

Global grain production is down 7% as a result of poor weather.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (13) Feb 21, 2011
Since 2007, there's been a significant tunabout to colder temperatures:


You mean 2010 wasn't statistically tied with 1998 and 2005 as the warmest years ever recorded?

You had better inform NASA.

Don't forget to wear your tinfoil hat and underwear when you call them.

apex01
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2011
How can flooding and ocean rise mean more land?


More northern land that has favorable weather. I don't think the ice ages were known for food production.
GuruShabu
2.4 / 5 (17) Feb 21, 2011
And also means growing vegetables faster but UNFORTUNATELY there is NO GW!
Only Global networking to make GW profitable to some smart guys...
kaasinees
3 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2011
Guru, its time to go outside and take a break from your basement. Global Warming is real. And if you are linking this to Al Gore, i agree with you, he is a manipulative hyprocritcal bastard.
Sleepy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2011
Forget solar power, time to invest in allergy medication companies?
omatumr
2.1 / 5 (15) Feb 21, 2011
And if you are linking this to Al Gore, i agree with you, he is a manipulative hyprocritcal bastard.


Thanks to Al Gore and climate data manipulation, the US House of Representatives voted to cut off funding for the UN's IPCC.

The UN's IPCC shared a Nobel Prize with Al Gore for promoting false evidence of global warming.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
FrankHerbert
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 21, 2011
Global warming is at least as real as that neutron star in the center of the Sun you keep talking about.
kaasinees
3.7 / 5 (12) Feb 21, 2011
Global Warming is real -.-
Scientifica
2.3 / 5 (15) Feb 21, 2011
I never knew al gore was god...
Global warming is a fraud.
kaasinees
3 / 5 (13) Feb 22, 2011
Lol who called Al Gore, god?
Just because Al Gore is a fraud doesn't mean that Global Warming is a fraud.
Sinister181
3.3 / 5 (13) Feb 22, 2011
More fools arguing against Global Warming. Meanwhile, we have icebergs breaking off Antarctica and drifting across the oceans towards the other continents. We're seeing massive floods in certain countries, wiping out small towns... But, believe whatever you want to about Global Warming being a "fraud".
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (15) Feb 22, 2011
You mean 2010 wasn't statistically tied with 1998 and 2005 as the warmest years ever recorded?

You had better inform NASA.

Don't forget to wear your tinfoil hat and underwear when you call them.
I supose that depends on what you're measuring; climate, or average global temperature.

There are a lot of problems with the temperature record that have been thoroughly discussed in other threads.

As far as climate is concerned, the winters lately, have generally been more severe, and most pointedly, the snow caps are extending farther south.

BlankVellum
3.1 / 5 (15) Feb 22, 2011
The AGW deniers are out in force.

@omatumr

Thanks to Al Gore and climate data manipulation, the US House of Representatives voted to cut off funding for the UN's IPCC.

The UN's IPCC shared a Nobel Prize with Al Gore for promoting false evidence of global warming.


Do you have any evidence of these allegations of climate data manipulation? And please don't bring in Al Gore. He isn't a climate scientist. If you want a scientific debate, stick with the science.

Have you read the IPCC's AR4 report, which brought together no fewer than 10,000 peer reviewed articles on climate change, and concluded that it is a fact? Or are you going to go down the route of most contrarians and make unsubstantiated and embarrassing claims of conspiracy on the part of the IPCC?

Regards.

BlankVellum
3.5 / 5 (13) Feb 22, 2011
I supose that depends on what you're measuring; climate, or average global temperature.


Both are intimately related. A measure of one with be a measure of the other.

There are a lot of problems with the temperature record that have been thoroughly discussed in other threads.


Such as?

As far as climate is concerned, the winters lately, have generally been more severe, and most pointedly, the snow caps are extending farther south.


Winter will still be winter. The Earth will still rotate about an axis inclined 23 degrees towards the orbital plane. Most importantly, weather will still be weather. Global warming deals with the /climate/.

As for the ice caps extending, there is strong evidence that Arctic sea ice is melting, with a current mass well below the mean average over the last 20 years. Antarctica is following a similar trend, and has been losing about 24 cubic miles of ice each year since 2002. (Source: NASA's Grace satellite)

Modernmystic
1 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2011
Global warming is at least as real as that neutron star in the center of the Sun you keep talking about.


No, it's less real than that...

Where's a flat earther when you need them?
hush1
1 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2011
Global Climate Change has cycles. (No, not bicycles)
Is Mars getting warmer or colder?
Anyone know?
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 22, 2011
Both are intimately related. A measure of one with be a measure of the other.
Not necessarily. Average global temperature has little to say in regards to average global precipitation, for instance.
Such as?

Urban heat islands, measurement methodologies, equipment compatibilities, blah, blah, blah.

The upshot is, we're using chaotic methodologies to measure an inherently chaotic system - while expecting exacting results.
Winter will still be winter. The Earth will still rotate about an axis inclined 23 degrees towards the orbital plane. Most importantly, weather will still be weather. Global warming deals with the /climate/.
Sure, but the question is: Is the climate getting better, worse, or neutral?

continued...
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 22, 2011
...continuing
As for the ice caps extending, there is strong evidence that Arctic sea ice is melting, with a current mass well below the mean average over the last 20 years. Antarctica is following a similar trend, and has been losing about 24 cubic miles of ice each year since 2002. (Source: NASA's Grace satellite)
"Sea ice" is irrelevant. It floats on the water and does nothing to raise sea levels upon melting. However, the northern icesheet (sea ice) is expanding. So I guess it averages out (more or less).

Seriously, many mid-latitude glaciers are growing...

http:/www.springerlink.com/content/a3581383141m4126/

http:/news.discovery.com/earth/himalayas-glaciers-shrink.html

...the Northern icesheet is expanding...

http:/www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7086746.ece

...and the Antarctic is accumulating more ice than it's losing.

http:/www.cpom.org/research/djw-ptrsa364.pdf

Therefore it seems doubtful there's a net loss of global ice.
Sanescience
1 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2011
GLOBAL WARMING MUST BE STOPPED!

America needs to buy back it's foreign debt and can use high food prices and foreign exports to do that.

If only China would let its population buy more of our food, instead of accomplishing part of it's population reduction program by letting sections of it's poor to starve to death...

More fools arguing against Global Warming. Meanwhile, we have icebergs breaking off Antarctica and drifting across the oceans towards the other continents. We're seeing massive floods in certain countries, wiping out small towns... But, believe whatever you want to about Global Warming being a "fraud".


Ah yes, because none of those things have happened before, with BRILLIANT LOGIC like that we are never going to convince the world to cut back on warming gasses so that the Earth can get back to it's regularly scheduled ice age!
BlankVellum
3.8 / 5 (11) Feb 22, 2011
@ubavontuba

Sea ice is certainly not irrelevant. The fact that its mass has reduced over the last 20 years is evidence of a warming trend (which has anyway been established using many independent temperature proxies). Total sea ice has decreased by a total of 1.2 million square kilometers. That's the size of Texas and California combined. Average temperatures in the Arctic are rising twice as fast as elsewhere in the world. The largest single block of ice in the Arctic, the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, which has remained for at least 3000 years, began to crack in 2000 and broke away entirely in under 2 years. Finally, evidence from NASA indicates that the permanent ice cover is contracting by 9% each decade, This is, if I may say so, rather alarming.
BlankVellum
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 22, 2011
Not necessarily. Average global temperature has little to say in regards to average global precipitation, for instance


In my understanding there are two reports that suggest otherwise. One shows that rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have caused an intensification of heavy rainfall events over some two-thirds of the weather stations on land in the northern hemisphere. Another shows that anthropogenic greenhouse gases may have contributed to an increased flood risk in England and Wales. Both links are in Nature, but unfortunately I can't post them due to the spam filter. One is called: "Human contribution to more-intense precipitation extremes" (Min et al.), the other: "Anthropogenic greenhouse gas contribution to flood risk in England and Wales in autumn 2000". (Pall et al.)

Kind regards,
Adam
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (15) Feb 23, 2011
Sea ice is certainly not irrelevant. The fact that its mass has reduced over the last 20 years is evidence of a warming trend (which has anyway been established using many independent temperature proxies). Total sea ice has decreased by a total of 1.2 million square kilometers. That's the size of Texas and California combined.
Did you not read any of my references?
Average temperatures in the Arctic are rising twice as fast as elsewhere in the world.
So?
The largest single block of ice in the Arctic, the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, which has remained for at least 3000 years, began to crack in 2000 and broke away entirely in under 2 years.
"The Ward Hunt ice sheet began breaking up approximately 100 years ago..."

http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Hunt_Ice_Shelf
Finally, evidence from NASA indicates that the permanent ice cover is contracting by 9% each decade, This is, if I may say so, rather alarming.
Why?

Your fears are apparently based upon expired data.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 23, 2011
In my understanding there are two reports that suggest otherwise. One shows that rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have caused an intensification of heavy rainfall events over some two-thirds of the weather stations on land in the northern hemisphere. Another shows that anthropogenic greenhouse gases may have contributed to an increased flood risk in England and Wales. Both links are in Nature, but unfortunately I can't post them due to the spam filter. One is called: "Human contribution to more-intense precipitation extremes" (Min et al.), the other: "Anthropogenic greenhouse gas contribution to flood risk in England and Wales in autumn 2000". (Pall et al.)
Right. And just a few years ago we were in a relatively dry climate cycle and they predicted permanent and catastrophic droughts. How conveniently we forget.
BlankVellum
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2011
Did you not read any of my references?


Yes. They were mostly opinion pieces from newspapers. We are trying to establish a warming trend here. The fact that the permanent ice cover from the arctic is losing mass at a rate of 9% each decade is significant. You asked why this is alarming: because a loss of permanent ice (so quickly) will result in rising sea temperatures, and a lack of time to respond. Incidentally, a warming arctic is not the only means of determining a warming trend globally. Not by a long shot.

"The Ward Hunt ice sheet began breaking up approximately 100 years ago..."


It seems my source may have been erroneous (but only slightly). Ellesmere Island is lined by a continuous ice shelf stretching 8900 km^2. After 100 years or so this shelf was reduced to a group of much smaller shelves, of which the WHIS was one of them. This began to break up in 2002, and underwent rapid fragmentation in 2008. (Source: NASA Earth Observatory)

BlankVellum
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2011
Right. And just a few years ago we were in a relatively dry climate cycle and they predicted permanent and catastrophic droughts. How conveniently we forget.


Who is the 'they' in your sentence? You seem to imply that climatologists are all homogeneous. As this is a science site, I thought you would have had some understanding of the scientific method. People but forward hypotheses or models extremely cautiously, and if they do not hold up to observation, then the hypotheses are discarded, and the models are improved. That being said, could you provide the references for those who predicted catastrophic droughts a few years ago? Bearing in mind that there will be dry cycles in various parts of the world, and wet ones in other parts. It does not make sense to speak of 'dry climate cycles'.
BlankVellum
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2011
and the Antarctic is accumulating more ice than it's losing.


It is interesting that although the Antarctic is losing mass, it showed record amounts of sea ice extent in 2007. We should distinguish between land ice and sea ice for a start. The GRACE satellite has been able to survey the entire ice sheet. Using this data, Velicogna 2006 determined mass variations of the entire Antarctic ice sheet from 2002 to 2005. They found the overall mass of the ice sheet decreased significantly, at a rate of 152 ± 80 cubic kilometers of ice per year (equivalent to 0.4 ± 0.2 millimeters of global sea-level rise per year).

But there is still conflicting information coming from Antarctica as you are right to point out. It is an enormously complex area that needs further attention.
BlankVellum
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2011
Urban heat islands, measurement methodologies, equipment compatibilities, blah, blah, blah.

The upshot is, we're using chaotic methodologies to measure an inherently chaotic system


This is a very poor argument (and one used by skeptics a lot). Independent studies using different data sets, methodologies and different software have all shown very similar results. The increase in global mean surface temperatures (GMST) since 1975 is a common and consistent features among all reconstructions. This cannot be explained away using the arguments you just proffered.
GSwift7
2.3 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2011
This is totally anctedotal, but it's more for entertainment than anything substantive. Hope you don't mind.

I live in central South Carolina, locally known as the "midlands" as opposed to the "low country" or "upstate" regions. We are right at the transistion point between low-lying coastal climate and higher elevation climate, so you can actually see the change as you drive up the road in a span of less than 100 miles. As a result, we have the unique bonus of having nearly year-round seasonal allergens here. We only have about a 2 week period in the year when there isn't one type or another of seasonal allergen. In another few weeks, everything here will turn yellow-green as the pine pollen launches the new year of wattery eyes and runny noses. When they say that one type will have a longer season, we don't care here because that just means another type will have a shorter season. We're still screwed pretty much year round. Oh well. :)
GSwift7
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2011
On an interresting side note: Last year on the peak day of the pine pollen I was driving through town and could not see the street lights at the end of the block. The yellow/green pollen is that thick here. I've never seen anything like that anywhere else I've ever lived. They say that type of pollen isn't the bad kind though; it's the types that are too small to see in the air that actually cause the alergic reactions, but the yellow stuff always signals the start of the worst part of the season, so that's what everyone talks about.
omatumr
1.9 / 5 (13) Feb 23, 2011
Do you have any evidence of these allegations of climate data manipulation?


Yes. The evidence includes statements from those involved.

See the ongoing discussion on Professor Judith Curry's blog (Climate Etc) about "Hiding The Decline."

judithcurry.com/2011/02/22/hiding-the-decline/

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
BlankVellum
4 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2011
@omatumr

For future reference, quoting a blog in support of your assertion will not get you anywhere. In addition, you may be interested to know that every independent investigation into the supposed data manipulation by climate scientists found no wrong doing. The 'statements from those involved' were taken entirely out of context, deliberately. A more than cursory inspection (and a basic understanding of the idioms used) would show this.

Kind regards,
Adam
geokstr
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 23, 2011
...every independent investigation into the supposed data manipulation by climate scientists found no wrong doing.

Given that every "objective" "unbiased" "independent investigation" was packed with Warmists, what did anyone expect? One of the leads "investigating" East Anglia "forgot" to mention that he worked for them for a long time. None of them called prominent skeptics to testify.

And Michael Mann got over $2 million in "Stimulus" funds. Maybe even I'd make make believe the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were exorcised from my Hockey Stick for that kind of loot.
BlankVellum
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2011
@geokstr

Given that every "objective" "unbiased" "independent investigation" was packed with Warmists, what did anyone expect?


Ah yes, the vulgar sound of contrarian logic. Make spectacular assertions about the integrity of those involved, whilst failing utterly to provide a single shred of credible evidence to back those assertions up.

You are a fascinating example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Do carry on.
barakn
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2011
Means more land and time to grow food as well. -apex01

Temperate zones are the breadbaskets of the world. These agricultural areas rely on cold winters to kill off plant pathogens and pests, especially insects. Snow blankets also allow the soil to be trickle-charged with water and nitrogen without washing out other nutrients. Later, when you're buying your food from the Russians and Canadians, you'll vaguely remember this post.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 24, 2011
Did you not read any of my references?
Yes. They were mostly opinion pieces from newspapers.
Well then, you are clearly lying. SpringerLink is an online science journal. Discovery News is a well recognized lay science information source (from the Discovery channel network, no less). The London Times is a highly regarded news organization and publication (the article is not "an opinion piece" and it provides plenty of quotes and cited references from climate science sources). And surely you can't so cavalierly dismiss the paper from Cambridge!

So, now that we've established that you're a blatant liar, it seems it is you who is unlikely to have a proper "understanding of the scientific method."
We are trying to establish a warming trend here.
This statement alone establishes the fact that you haven't a proper understanding of the scientific method. The scientific method demands observational neutrality.

continued...
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2011
The fact that the permanent ice cover from the arctic is losing mass at a rate of 9% each decade is significant.
This simply isn't true anymore. And it's proof that once again, you're ignoring the science you don't want to believe.

"It has been a crazy winter with Arctic ice cover growing and very cold weather in northern Europe and eastern America all linked to this strongly negative Arctic Oscillation." - Mark Serreze (director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Colorado) and this quote is from the London Times article from April 4th 2010. Since then, we've had an even stronger northern winter.
You asked why this is alarming: because a loss of permanent ice (so quickly) will result in rising sea temperatures, and a lack of time to respond.
Respond to what? Weather? Humanity has been "responding" (adapting) to weather and climate changes for hundreds of thousands of years!
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2011
"The Ward Hunt ice sheet began breaking up approximately 100 years ago..."
It seems my source may have been erroneous (but only slightly).
"Only slightly?" Are you nuts? 90 years is not "only slightly" in this case (unless you mean to suggest AGW was readily apparent a hundred years ago!).
After 100 years or so this shelf was reduced to a group of much smaller shelves, of which the WHIS was one of them. This began to break up in 2002, and underwent rapid fragmentation in 2008. (Source: NASA Earth Observatory)
So? All you're saying is it continued to do what it had been doing all along (which is normal for icesheets to do!).
Who is the 'they' in your sentence?
Generally speaking, the global warming alarmists, of course.
You seem to imply that climatologists are all homogeneous.
Not at all.

continued...
BlankVellum
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2011
@ubavontuba

The London Times is a highly regarded news organization and publication (the article is not "an opinion piece" and it provides plenty of quotes and cited references from climate science sources)


I'm not really in the mood for arguments from authority.

And surely you can't so cavalierly dismiss the paper from Cambridge!


I didn't (hence the obvious caveat).

This statement alone establishes the fact that you haven't a proper understanding of the scientific method. The scientific method demands observational neutrality.


And this observational neutrality has shown a warming trend, which is anomalous in a multi century to millenial context. This has been backed up by many independent sources, including GHCN v.2, HadCRU, NOAA, ICOADS, and so forth.

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2011
As this is a science site, I thought you would have had some understanding of the scientific method.
Well, I think it's been well established that your understanding of the scientific method, certainly is in doubt.
People but forward hypotheses or models extremely cautiously, and if they do not hold up to observation, then the hypotheses are discarded, and the models are improved.
But earlier you said, "We are trying to establish a warming trend here." That certainly doesn't read like a cautious approach.
That being said, could you provide the references for those who predicted catastrophic droughts a few years ago?
Would you read them if I did?
Bearing in mind that there will be dry cycles in various parts of the world, and wet ones in other parts. It does not make sense to speak of 'dry climate cycles'.
What are you talking about? "Climate cycle" is standard diction!

http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_cycle

continued...
BlankVellum
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2011
This simply isn't true anymore


Unfortunately it is. Unless NASA is missing something. As of this year (January 2011), sea ice extent in the Arctic was 13.55 million square kilometers. This was the lowest since records began in 1979. The Labrador Sea remains largely ice-free even at this time of the year.

Respond to what? Weather?


No, climate. If it changed rapidly, then we will suffer for it.

"Only slightly?" Are you nuts? 90 years is not "only slightly" in this case (unless you mean to suggest AGW was readily apparent a hundred years ago!).


It began to break up properly in 2002, fragmenting entirely in 2008. For an ice shelf that has remained for 3000 years, to break up in such a short period of time is unusual (100 years is short!).

BlankVellum
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2011
But earlier you said, "We are trying to establish a warming trend here." That certainly doesn't read like a cautious approach.


I'm curious. Are you aware of the rise in GMST over the last 60 years or so? Are you aware of how well established those figures are? Are you aware that 2010 was the hottest year on record? Good grief, even the hardest nosed skeptic such as Lindzen doesn't deny that the Earth is actually warming up! (Ignoring the data/ basic physics won't get you very far, unless of course you're a denier employed by the fossil fuel lobby). He's just skeptical of how much influence we have had in that regard. A fair position to take, but one left out in the cold from AR4 (of which Lindzen was lead author in one of the chapters).

"Climate cycle" is standard diction!


Yes, well done. 'Dry' climate cycle is not.

Could you provide references for those warning of catastrophic droughts?

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 24, 2011
It is interesting that although the Antarctic is losing mass,
Again, proof you didn't read the Cambridge paper. It states the Antarctic is GAINING mass.
...it showed record amounts of sea ice extent in 2007. We should distinguish between land ice and sea ice for a start.
I've already said so. Sea ice is generally irrelevant. It's the land ice that affects sea level and most substantially increases reflectivity.
The GRACE satellite has been able to survey the entire ice sheet. Using this data, Velicogna 2006 determined mass variations of the entire Antarctic ice sheet from 2002 to 2005. They found the overall mass of the ice sheet decreased significantly, at a rate of 152 +or- 80 cubic kilometers of ice per year (equivalent to 0.4 +or- 0.2 millimeters of global sea-level rise per year).
Again, outdated data (and substantially so). Get with the program.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2011
But there is still conflicting information coming from Antarctica as you are right to point out. It is an enormously complex area that needs further attention.
There's nothing conflicting about it. It's gaining ice mass.
This is a very poor argument
No, it's not.
...(and one used by skeptics a lot). Independent studies using different data sets, methodologies and different software have all shown very similar results.
No, they haven't.
The increase in global mean surface temperatures (GMST) since 1975 is a common and consistent features among all reconstructions. This cannot be explained away using the arguments you just proffered.
Sure it can.

continued...
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2011
"A detailed analysis produced by dozens of scientists as part of the US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) identified and corrected errors in a variety of temperature observations, including the satellite data.[33][34] Neither regression models nor other related techniques were reconcilable with observed data. The use of fingerprinting techniques on data yielded that "Volcanic and human-caused fingerprints were not consistently identifiable in observed patterns of lapse rate change." As such, issues with reconciling data and models remain."

http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements#Reconciliation_with_climate_models
I'm not really in the mood for arguments from authority.
Who then?
I didn't (hence the obvious caveat).
Yes, you did. As it's obvious you didn't read it.

continued...
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2011
And this observational neutrality has shown a warming trend, which is anomalous in a multi century to millenial context. This has been backed up by many independent sources, including GHCN v.2, HadCRU, NOAA, ICOADS, and so forth.
So NOW you're interested in arguments from "authority?" You'll have to provide the references, as I'll contend the most recent data sets do not support your contentions.
BlankVellum
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2011
Again, proof you didn't read the Cambridge paper. It states the Antarctic is GAINING mass.


Let's assume that data from the GRACE satellite (and many temperature reconstructions showing Antarctica is warming, such as O'Donnell 2010) is entirely false. Does this disprove anthropogenic global warming? No, because the theory of AGW does not hinge on whether the poles are melting or not (they are). The models predict that Antarctica will still be cold, and it will have spells of ice growth. The key is in the long term trend. The Arctic has undeniably lost ice. The Antarctic is, as I've just stated, complicated. West Antarctica, for instance, has shown a consistent warming pattern over the last 50 years. This trend has continued during the winter for the last 25 years.

Again, outdated data (and substantially so). Get with the program


References please, otherwise this will simply be a bare assertion fallacy. And your confirmation bias will be exceedingly obvious.

Regards.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2011
Unfortunately it is. Unless NASA is missing something. As of this year (January 2011), sea ice extent in the Arctic was 13.55 million square kilometers. This was the lowest since records began in 1979. The Labrador Sea remains largely ice-free even at this time of the year.
Reference please.
No, climate. If it changed rapidly, then we will suffer for it.
It changes rapidly every year! Or, maybe you've never heard of seasonal variation?
It began to break up properly in 2002, fragmenting entirely in 2008.
No. We've established it began to break up 100 years ago!
For an ice shelf that has remained for 3000 years, to break up in such a short period of time is unusual (100 years is short!).
No it's not. Icesheets break up all the time, in less than a day!

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (11) Feb 24, 2011
I'm curious. Are you aware of the rise in GMST over the last 60 years or so? Are you aware of how well established those figures are? Are you aware that 2010 was the hottest year on record? Good grief, even the hardest nosed skeptic such as Lindzen doesn't deny that the Earth is actually warming up! (Ignoring the data/ basic physics won't get you very far, unless of course you're a denier employed by the fossil fuel lobby). He's just skeptical of how much influence we have had in that regard. A fair position to take, but one left out in the cold from AR4 (of which Lindzen was lead author in one of the chapters).
When did I deny the earth is warming up? It may be warming up, it may not. All I'm saying is we haven't sufficient data to be sure. And even if it is warming, we haven't any reason to think it's a catastrophic event. Heck, it may even be a good thing.
BlankVellum
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2011
Reference please


Bloody spam filter. See the National Snow and Ice Data Center for daily updates and information.

And no, the climate does not change every year. Please look up the definition of climate (as opposed to weather).
BlankVellum
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2011
All I'm saying is we haven't sufficient data to be sure


We have more than sufficient data. This is so well established I simply cannot fathom why you are still focused on it. Perhaps you'd like to explain what the 10,000 or so peer reviewed articles used in the IPCC's AR4 (which concluded that the Earth is warming up) were missing?

Regards.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2011
Yes, well done. 'Dry' climate cycle is not.
Sure it is. Even NASA uses it.

http:/www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-236
Could you provide references for those warning of catastrophic droughts?
Sure. As soon as it becomes apparent you will both read them, and be honest about it.
BlankVellum
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2011
So NOW you're interested in arguments from "authority?" You'll have to provide the references, as I'll contend the most recent data sets do not support your contentions.


There is a difference between citing newspapers, and citing data sources. Why do you contend that the recent data sets do not support my contentions? Especially since they unambiguously do, if you bothered to go and look at them.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2011
Let's assume that data from the GRACE satellite (and many temperature reconstructions showing Antarctica is warming, such as O'Donnell 2010) is entirely false. Does this disprove anthropogenic global warming? No, because the theory of AGW does not hinge on whether the poles are melting or not (they are).
Not anymore.
The models predict that Antarctica will still be cold, and it will have spells of ice growth. The key is in the long term trend. The Arctic has undeniably lost ice. The Antarctic is, as I've just stated, complicated. West Antarctica, for instance, has shown a consistent warming pattern over the last 50 years. This trend has continued during the winter for the last 25 years.
So? It's gaining mass. Land ice mass. you know, the important kind of mass.

Even if it all melted, the sea level would rise some, but we'd gain a lot more land than we'd lose. So, what's the problem?
BlankVellum
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2011
@ubavontuba

Not sure how you conclude that we'd gain a lot more land if all ice from the poles melted. That's some serious mental gymnastics. I;m sure Holland and other low lying areas would love you to explain you casual dismissal of the danger.

Finally, Antarctica is losing mass according to the GRACE satellite.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2011
References please, otherwise this will simply be a bare assertion fallacy. And your confirmation bias will be exceedingly obvious.
Say what? Your reference was from 2005! Are you suggesting time stopped in 2005?

Don't look now, but me thinks YOUR bias is showing!
Bloody spam filter. See the National Snow and Ice Data Center for daily updates and information.
Use the format I'm using (remove one backslash).
And no, the climate does not change every year. Please look up the definition of climate (as opposed to weather).
Sure it does, as we have to differentiate between seasons when we're talking about climate (it's not homogeneous).
We have more than sufficient data. This is so well established I simply cannot fathom why you are still focused on it. Perhaps you'd like to explain what the 10,000 or so peer reviewed articles used in the IPCC's AR4 (which concluded that the Earth is warming up) were missing?
Everything and nothing, as they change with the weather.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2011
There is a difference between citing newspapers, and citing data sources. Why do you contend that the recent data sets do not support my contentions? Especially since they unambiguously do, if you bothered to go and look at them.
Ah, so now you're admitting you CAN'T provide references? Are you a chatbot then?
Not sure how you conclude that we'd gain a lot more land if all ice from the poles melted. That's some serious mental gymnastics. I;m sure Holland and other low lying areas would love you to explain you casual dismissal of the danger.
They've been adapting to flooding for centuries. They'll figure it out.
Finally, Antarctica is losing mass according to the GRACE satellite.
Reference please.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2011
@GSwift7
This is totally anctedotal, but it's more for entertainment than anything substantive. Hope you don't mind.
OMG! That's awful! I'd never go ouside!

GSwift7
2.8 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2011
One little problem I MIGHT have with this article:

They suggest that a warmer world will result in a 'longer' alergy season in certain places. I'm not a biologist, so this is a question rather than a statement. I can easily see how a warm spring will cause an early bloom, and hence an early alergy season. However, the time span that it takes for a given type of plant to bloom and then for those blooms to fall off is fixed as far as I know. For example the pine trees here are known to pollenate for a certain number of days (I think it's like 5 or 6?). It's like clockwork, and it is very predictable. They all bloom at the same time and they all stop at the same time. If it starts earlier, shouldn't it also end earlier? The plants only make pollen as part of the process of producing fruits (seeds). They kinda try to get to the fruit part as soon as they can, don't they? Couldn't a warmer season result in exactly the same lenght of pollenation followed by a longer growing season?
GSwift7
2 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2011
Does anyone know if plants pollenate longer in a greenhouse than they do outside? I thought the pollenation process was genetic.
BlankVellum
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2011
@ubavontuba

Ah, so now you're admitting you CAN'T provide references? Are you a chatbot then?


No. How on Earth did you come to that ridiculous conclusion?

Reference please.


I thought the reference was implicit in the, er, reference. But seeing as I have to spell it out to you, see Velicogna 2009 "Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE" (Geophys. Res. Lett. 36)

Say what? Your reference was from 2005! Are you suggesting time stopped in 2005?


No, and I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make here. You stated that the GRACE satellite measurements were somehow outdated, then helpfully encouraging me to 'get with the program'. I was merely asking for credible sources to back up your assertion. You failed to provide any.

Kind regards.

BlankVellum
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2011
One more thing:

Sure it does, as we have to differentiate between seasons when we're talking about climate (it's not homogeneous).


This is simply wrong. We do not distinguish between seasons when discussing climate. Climate is the average weather over a period of a minimum of 30 years. To save me the bother, here's the following definition from Wikipedia:

"Climate encompasses the statistics of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological elements in a given region over a long period of time. Climate can be contrasted to weather, which is the present condition of these same elements and their variations over shorter time periods."

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2011
No. How on Earth did you come to that ridiculous conclusion?
You have yet to proved a single direct link to a reference.
I thought the reference was implicit in the, er, reference. But seeing as I have to spell it out to you, see Velicogna 2009 "Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE" (Geophys. Res. Lett. 36)
Again, old data. You have yet to use any current data, or refer to any current data.
No, and I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make here.
The point is you're using outdated data.
You stated that the GRACE satellite measurements were somehow outdated, then helpfully encouraging me to 'get with the program'. I was merely asking for credible sources to back up your assertion. You failed to provide any.
Cambridge papers and aren't good enough for you? So then, how do you define "credible?"
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2011
This is simply wrong. We do not distinguish between seasons when discussing climate.
Yes, we do. Otherwise areas with moderate seasonal swings verses extreme seasonal swings would appear to have similar climates.
See Climate is the average weather over a period of a minimum of 30 years. To save me the bother, here's the following definition from Wikipedia:
Maybe you should try reading your sources before spouting off.

Additional quotations from your source:

"The Koppen (climate) classification depends on average MONTHLY values of temperature and precipitation."

"A monsoon is a SEASONAL prevailing wind ..."

"A humid continental climate is marked by variable weather patterns and a large SEASONAL temperature variance..."

"Deserts usually have a large diurnal and SEASONAL temperature range..."

(Caps are mine, for emphasis)

http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate#K.C3.B6ppen

You owe me an apology.
BlankVellum
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2011
@ubavontuba

Again, old data. You have yet to use any current data, or refer to any current data.


Fascinating. Absolutely fascinating. So, according to you, data goes out of date after only a couple of years. Therefore, by your exact argument, nothing at all can be known about anything unless the data is recent. Let's ignore whether the data is actually valid (it is), and whether or not it has been usurped (it hasn't). I am of course ignoring the fact that the data is from 2009. Hardly 'out of date' by any stretch of the imagination. I was expecting better from you, I really was. As an addendum, your reference from the Royal Society called 'Mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet' was from 2006. My reference was from 2009. So you've just shot yourself in the foot. Nice one.

BlankVellum
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2011
@ubavontuba

To clear some things up, yes you are right, we should distinguish between seasonal changes when discussing climate. I should have clarified that we do not distinguish between seasons on a yearly basis. It is the long term trend that is important. Now, if you'd be so kind, I think a retraction of your statement that the temperature data sources are flawed is in order. You seem to have based your skepticism of AGW on this oft cited argument from contrarian circles, and it is demonstrably untrue, as I have explained to you.

Regards.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2011
So, according to you, data goes out of date after only a couple of years.
In this case, yes.
Therefore, by your exact argument, nothing at all can be known about anything unless the data is recent.
In the meteorological sciences, having the most current information is critical.
Let's ignore whether the data is actually valid (it is),
No, it isn't.
and whether or not it has been usurped (it hasn't).
Yes, it has. Did you not read about the recent floods covering Australia, for instance?
I am of course ignoring the fact that the data is from 2009. Hardly 'out of date' by any stretch of the imagination.
Sorry, but it is.
I was expecting better from you, I really was.
And I, from you.
As an addendum, your reference from the Royal Society called 'Mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet' was from 2006. My reference was from 2009.
Which only makes it more relevant against you're old data (
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2011
Repeating that last sentence:

Which only makes it more relevant against you're old data (
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2011
To clear some things up, yes you are right, we should distinguish between seasonal changes when discussing climate.
Not much of an apology, but I'll accept it.
I should have clarified that we do not distinguish between seasons on a yearly basis. It is the long term trend that is important.
Again, from your own source:

"The standard averaging period is 30 years,[3] but other periods may be used depending on the purpose."

The 30 year standard is only a general use guideline. Climate can be discussed in any preferred duration, including seasonal durations.
Now, if you'd be so kind, I think a retraction of your statement that the temperature data sources are flawed is in order. You seem to have based your skepticism of AGW on this oft cited argument from contrarian circles, and it is demonstrably untrue, as I have explained to you.
Sorry, it is flawed.

continued...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2011
Once again:

"A detailed analysis produced by dozens of scientists as part of the US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) identified and corrected errors in a variety of temperature observations, including the satellite data.[33][34] Neither regression models nor other related techniques were reconcilable with observed data. The use of fingerprinting techniques on data yielded that "Volcanic and human-caused fingerprints were not consistently identifiable in observed patterns of lapse rate change." As such, issues with reconciling data and models remain."

http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements#Reconciliation_with_climate_models
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2011
Note: Some parts of my messages are being cut off, and can only be read if you hit "quote" and read them in the "Add your Comment" box. This is particularly true of links.

It looks like the site is having trouble posting certain font characters.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2011
Repeating that last sentence:

Which only makes it more relevant against you're old data (


Trying again:

Which only makes it more relevant against you're old data (pre-2005 mostly), and belies your claims the Antarctic was shrinking during that period.
BlankVellum
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2011
Which only makes it more relevant against you're old data (pre-2005 mostly), and belies your claims the Antarctic was shrinking during that period.


My source was actually from 2009. You stated that your Royal Society source "only makes it more relevant against you're old data". This is odd, as you just stated that "In the meteorological sciences, having the most current information is critical". Ergo, my data is more recent than yours, therefore by definition, newer. You've shot yourself in the other foot now, even after I explicitly highlighted your self-defeating argument. Well done.

By the way, I don't buy your argument that meteorological data goes 'out of date' at all. That's just as absurd as stating that ice core data is out of date because it is measuring something which happened in the past.

In this case, yes


You haven't even attempted to explain why, despite my asking. Therefore, I will take it that this is childish hand waving and carry on.
BlankVellum
4 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2011
Yes, it has. Did you not read about the recent floods covering Australia, for instance?


I'd be fascinated to know exactly what floods in Australia have to do with evidence of mass loss in Antarctica.

The 30 year standard is only a general use guideline. Climate can be discussed in any preferred duration, including seasonal durations.


Let me be clearer. When discussing climate, you would not distinguish between a winter and a summer IN THE SAME YEAR. That was all I meant. Let's drop it now, it getting old.

BlankVellum
4 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2011
A detailed analysis produced by dozens of scientists as part of the US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) identified and corrected errors in a variety of temperature observations, including the satellite data


From the executive summary reference sourced in the above article:

"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human- induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."

So the discrepancies have been rectified. There is still a warming trend.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2011
My source was actually from 2009


The data isn't. It's from 2002-2005, as you stated below:

The GRACE satellite has been able to survey the entire ice sheet. Using this data, Velicogna 2006 determined mass variations of the entire Antarctic ice sheet from 2002 to 2005.


continuing:

My data was concurrent with yours, and belied your assertions the Antarctic was losing ice mass.

"Climate change" data must include the most current data, or it's irrelevant. For instance, it's hard to justify an argument for long-term drought in Australia, considering the recent and catastrophic floods.

Just as it's hard to argue the northern ice sheet is shrinking when it's been growing. Here's a side-by-side comparison of the polar minimum in 2007 and 2010:

http:/igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=23&fy=2007&sm=09&sd=23&sy=2010

It's pretty obvious the 2010 minimum was much greater than the 2007 minimum.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2011
By the way, I don't buy your argument that meteorological data goes 'out of date' at all. That's just as absurd as stating that ice core data is out of date because it is measuring something which happened in the past.
Uh, by defintion, the "past" is not current. Ice core data only gives clues to climate and weather from the time it was deposited. It says little about what's happening today.

You haven't even attempted to explain why, despite my asking. Therefore, I will take it that this is childish hand waving and carry on.
Uh, because it's stupid to argue the Northern icesheet minimum is shrinking, when it's not.
BlankVellum
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2011
he data isn't. It's from 2002-2005, as you stated below:


The reference you cited below was from a paper by Velicogna in 2006. The paper in question is from 2009. The data is also up to that point as well, and it shows exactly the same trend.

"Climate change" data must include the most current data, or it's irrelevant.


Complete and utter bullshit. Are you suggesting that past climate reconstructions using data from ice cores and tree ring samples are irrelevant? What planet are you living on? Seriously?

For instance, it's hard to justify an argument for long-term drought in Australia, considering the recent and catastrophic floods


Who suggested long term floods? Can you provide references? More importantly, what's with the wild tangential swing off topic?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2011
The solution to allergies is to desensitize the immune system from the allergen.
Ingesting local bee pollen is one way.
BlankVellum
4 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2011
Ice core data only gives clues to climate and weather from the time it was deposited. It says little about what's happening today


Actually, it has a lot to say about what is happening today. I can only marvel at your complete lack of understanding of this topic. It is useful to know, for instance, the changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere in the past, so we can measure the effects that such changes had on the climate (and thus predict what effects changes in the future are likely to bring. It is useful to know, for instance, that the global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm^3 in 2005. It is useful, for instance, to know that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores. Do you get it yet?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2011
I'd be fascinated to know exactly what floods in Australia have to do with evidence of mass loss in Antarctica.
You're taking this out of context. It was an example of a significant change from prior years.

However, according to this graph:

http:/arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png

...the Southern Hemisphere sea ice has generally been above the mean for the past two seasons.

Let me be clearer. When discussing climate, you would not distinguish between a winter and a summer IN THE SAME YEAR.

I would. I wouldn't recommend someone move to Phoenix for the mild winters, for instance, without mentioning the brutal summers. And I'd probably highlight the recent seasons' highs and lows.

That was all I meant. Let's drop it now, it getting old.
Okay.
BlankVellum
4 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2011
.the Southern Hemisphere sea ice has generally been above the mean for the past two seasons.


This is only a problem if you lack appreciation of the importance of natural variability on short time scales.

I wouldn't recommend someone move to Phoenix for the mild winters


That would be weather, not climate. Climate is the average weather over a long period of time. Not, for instance, distinguishing between seasons within one year. We in Europe had a bitterly cold winter last year. I then had to endure the unending torrent of unadulterated ignorance from people saying that global warming must be a lie because it looks cold outside. I helpfully pointed out that the Earth still rotates around an axis inclined 23 degrees towards the orbital plane, regardless of whether the Earth was warming up. Winters will still be cold, and summers will still be warm. It's the average temperature that matters.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2011
So the discrepancies have been rectified. There is still a warming trend.
That any corrections had to be made at all, highlights the errors in measurement to which I referred. And:

Who made the adjustments, and how did they justify them?

Why was the satellite and radiosonde data essentially invalidated?

Or, why wasn't the land based data corrected to match the satellite and radiosonde data?

This smacks of an observational bias.

And, why are these "measurements" continuing to show record temperatures, when I've clearly shown both polar ice caps have been growing the past two years? These measurements simply don't jibe with reality.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2011
The reference you cited below was from a paper by Velicogna in 2006. The paper in question is from 2009. The data is also up to that point as well, and it shows exactly the same trend.
It doesn't matter. There's been a significant turnaround in the past two years.
Complete and utter bullshit. Are you suggesting that past climate reconstructions using data from ice cores and tree ring samples are irrelevant? What planet are you living on? Seriously?
They only provide data from when they were deposited and grown. They say nothing about what's happening now. The only thing relevant we can learn from them is past trends.
Who suggested long term floods? Can you provide references? More importantly, what's with the wild tangential swing off topic?
The context was in regards to old data versus new data. Three years ago, Australia was in drought. It isn't true to say so anymore. just as it isn't true to claim the icesheets are shrinking.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2011
Actually, it has a lot to say about what is happening today. I can only marvel at your complete lack of understanding of this topic. It is useful to know, for instance, the changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere in the past, so we can measure the effects that such changes had on the climate (and thus predict what effects changes in the future are likely to bring.
How do you know the climate isn't what caused the changes in the atmosphere?

It is useful to know, for instance, that the global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm^3 in 2005. It is useful, for instance, to know that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores. Do you get it yet?
No. CO2 is such a small part of the atmosphere (measured in parts per million) that it's influence is overstated.

cont...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2011
...continuing:

Water vapor is by far, more influential. And then there are variables like biosphere effects, total solar energy reaching the earth, absorption, reflectivity, and so on. Blaming a warming trend on CO2 alone, in such a complex system, is like your doctor saying your heart is failing because you ate too much on one particular day.

This is only a problem if you lack appreciation of the importance of natural variability on short time scales.
I don't see that your data is significantly longer. And, that the current data reverses previous data, is extremely relevant.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2011
That would be weather, not climate.
That would depend on the context of the conversation.

Climate is the average weather over a long period of time. Not, for instance, distinguishing between seasons within one year.
Again, dependent on the context.

We in Europe had a bitterly cold winter last year. I then had to endure the unending torrent of unadulterated ignorance from people saying that global warming must be a lie because it looks cold outside. I helpfully pointed out that the Earth still rotates around an axis inclined 23 degrees towards the orbital plane, regardless of whether the Earth was warming up. Winters will still be cold, and summers will still be warm. It's the average temperature that matters.
Why? It seems the extremes are what concern people. Therefore, shouldn't we be at least equally concerned about the extremes?

After all, it is the extremes which pose the greatest dangers to our environment, safety, housing, food, and water supplies.
BlankVellum
4 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2011
Again, dependent on the context.


No, no and no. If we were discussing seasonal changes in, say, 2003, that would NOT be climate. That would be WEATHER. it is simply wrong to say otherwise.

Why? It seems the extremes are what concern people. Therefore, shouldn't we be at least equally concerned about the extremes?


Because those extremes are WEATHER. Please don't tell me I have to go through this again. There is a very clear distinction between climate and weather. I can't possibly say anything more other than to observe this distinction, because it is important.

CO2 is such a small part of the atmosphere (measured in parts per million) that it's influence is overstated.


I see an elementary course in basic physics is in order here. However, I honestly can't be bothered to educate you, as I've wasted enough time here. I would suggest you start by researching why CO2 is considered a greenhouse gas. This would include an introduction to radiative forcing.

BlankVellum
4 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2011
It doesn't matter. There's been a significant turnaround in the past two years.


This is just an ad hoc rationalization. You're making it up as you go along. Please provide a reference explicitly refuting the data from GRACE.

They only provide data from when they were deposited and grown. They say nothing about what's happening now. The only thing relevant we can learn from them is past trends.


THAT IS THE POINT.

The context was in regards to old data versus new data. Three years ago, Australia was in drought. It isn't true to say so anymore. just as it isn't true to claim the icesheets are shrinking.


I asked for references, you didn't provide them (again). So I will (again) conclude that this is hand waving and that in fact you don't have any evidence to support your assertion.

BlankVellum
4 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2011
That any corrections had to be made at all, highlights the errors in measurement to which I referred


No, it highlights proper use of the scientific method and intellectual honesty. In addition, you still haven't explained the consistency in the warming trends observed after the correction.

And, why are these "measurements" continuing to show record temperatures, when I've clearly shown both polar ice caps have been growing the past two years?


Sorry, you haven't. The Arctic is undoubtedly losing ice mass. Go and look at the satellite images. They're very easy to find. Antarctica is also losing mass.
BlankVellum
4 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2011
Perhaps you'd like to try and explain the warming trend in each of the following data sources, without using bare assertion fallacies:

- GHCN v.2 (Global Historical Climate Network: weather station records from around the world, temperature and precipitation)
-USHCN US. Historical Climate Network (v.1 and v.2)
-World Monthly Surface Station Climatology UCAR
-Antarctic weather stations
-European weather stations (ECA)
-Italian Meterological Society IMS
-Satellite feeds (AMSU, SORCE (Solar irradiance), NASA A-train, Ocean Color)
-Tide Gauges (Proudman Oceanographic Lab)
-World Glacier Monitoring Service
-Argo float data
-International Comprehensive Ocean/Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS) (Oceanic in situ observations)
-AERONET Aerosol information
-Arctic data from the Cooperative Arctic Data and Information Service (CADIS)

or the Paleo data:

-NOAA Paleoclimate
-Pangaea
-GRIP/NGRIP Ice cores (Denmark)
-GISP2
-National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC)
-Insolation (i.e. Milankovitch cycles)
BlankVellum
4 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2011
See Boé et al (2009) 'September sea-ice cover in the Arctic Ocean projected to vanish by 2100' (Nature Geoscience 2, 341 - 343)

From the Abstract:
"The Arctic climate is changing rapidly1. From 1979 to 2006, September sea-ice extent decreased by almost 25% or about 100,000 km2 per year (ref. 2). In September 2007, Arctic sea-ice extent reached its lowest level since satellite observations began3 and in September 2008, sea-ice cover was still low. This development has raised concerns that the Arctic Ocean could be ice-free in late summer in only a few decades, with important economic and geopolitical implications. Unfortunately, most current climate models underestimate significantly the observed trend in Arctic sea-ice decline4, leading to doubts regarding their projections for the timing of ice-free conditions."
BlankVellum
4 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2011
See also:

http:/www.accuweather.com/blogs/climatechange/story/44710/the-decline-of-arctic-sea-ice.asp

And:

http:/chartsgraphs.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/nsidc_arctic_sie_max_min_melt_by_yr_snag_it_2.png

And:

http:/www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2007GL029703.shtml

Evidence for Antarctica sea ice decline:

http:/www.sciencemag.org/content/302/5648/1203.abstract
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2011
No, no and no. If we were discussing seasonal changes in, say, 2003, that would NOT be climate. That would be WEATHER. it is simply wrong to say otherwise.
Again, context. If I was talking about seasonal changes in 2003 and comparing them with other years for whatever reason, I'm talking about the climate.
Because those extremes are WEATHER. Please don't tell me I have to go through this again. There is a very clear distinction between climate and weather. I can't possibly say anything more other than to observe this distinction, because it is important.
But the one affects the other. You can't talk about climate without, at least, talking about weather trends. Extreme conditions can be (and are) tracked as trends.
I see an elementary course in basic physics is in order here.
Yeah, for you.
However, I honestly can't be bothered to educate you, as I've wasted enough time here.
And as often as you've been shown to be wrong, you've learned nothing?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2011
I would suggest you start by researching why CO2 is considered a greenhouse gas.

Sure, but it's not the only, or single most important thing which affects the climate.

This would include an introduction to radiative forcing.

You're an idiot if you think CO2 is the only thing that affects radiative forcing.

"The radiation balance can be altered by factors such as intensity of solar energy, reflection by clouds or gases, absorption by various gases or surfaces, and emission of heat by various materials."

...which is pretty much what I said.

http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing#Radiation_balance

This is just an ad hoc rationalization. You're making it up as you go along.

No it isn't. Didn't you bother to look at the references I provided?

Please provide a reference explicitly refuting the data from GRACE.
I didn't refute it. I said things have significantly changed since then.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2011
THAT IS THE POINT.
So we agree then. Why then, are you trying to raise an argument?

Past trends only tell us about the past. They are not necessarily indicative of current trends. This is especially true in that the variables have changed significantly.

I asked for references, you didn't provide them (again).
Sure I have. Are you blind?

So I will (again) conclude that this is hand waving and that in fact you don't have any evidence to support your assertion.
Didn't you see the recent ice data references I provided? They're really cool (pun intended).

So, are you this famous chatbot I heard about that only references the GRACE data?

Or, are you suggesting you're simply not smart enough to research additional data on your own?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2011
No, it highlights proper use of the scientific method and intellectual honesty.
So adjusting data to what I want it to be, is correct scientific methodology? Since when?

In addition, you still haven't explained the consistency in the warming trends observed after the correction.
But I have suggested they may be false, as demonstrated by the recent ice advances.

Sorry, you haven't. The Arctic is undoubtedly losing ice mass. Go and look at the satellite images. They're very easy to find. Antarctica is also losing mass.
Ah ha! You really are a chatbot then, as I HAVE provided the satellite imagery which shows the permanent ice (season to season ice) has expanded. And, I provided a graph which shows the Antarctic ice has trended higher then the mean. Did you miss them?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Feb 28, 2011
Perhaps you'd like to try and explain the warming trend in each of the following data sources, without using bare assertion fallacies:
Perhaps you'd like to explain how this data can be correct when the ice caps and seasonal snow caps are growing.

And like I said before. They're using chaotic methodologies to measure an inherently chaotic system while expecting exacting results. I'll add: It seems apparent that when the results don't match their expectations, they modify the results accordingly (as you all but admitted to, above).

or the Paleo data:
At best, the paleo data is a guess based on assumptions and interpretations that may, or may not, be entirely correct.

See Boe et al (2009) 'September sea-ice cover in the Arctic Ocean projected to vanish by 2100' (Nature Geoscience 2, 341 - 343)
Gloom and doom predictions are ridiculous. The climate alarmists have already proven themselves dreadful at prognostication.

And, it's based on outdated data.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Feb 28, 2011
See also:
The first one is a blog.

The second one is a blog.

The third one is a paper from 2007 (old data).

And the last one is a paper from 2003 (really old data).

Seriously. Where did you learn to do research?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Feb 28, 2011
And most importantly, you've yet to show that warming (should it occur) is something to be particularly concerned about.
BlankVellum
4 / 5 (4) Feb 28, 2011
You're an idiot if you think CO2 is the only thing that affects radiative forcing.


What's it called when you attack a position that your opponent doesn't hold? That's right, a strawman. I never stated this. What you don't seem to understand is that CO2 is the most potent GHG, after methane etc.

The first one is a blog.


With links to peer reviewed source, such as the University of Washington PIOMAS graph, showing that Arctic sea ice volume has been on a steady decline since the late 1970s, and is now about 70% lower than the mean.

The second one is a blog.


No, the second one was an Annual Arctic summary from the NSIDC, clearly showing a decline, not a blog.

The rest you've managed to dismiss in such a laughably inept way that I couldn't possibly refute it, without getting muddied down in the murky depths of idiocy. Climate data doesn't just conveniently go out of date because you say it does. You'll have to try much much harder than that.



BlankVellum
4 / 5 (4) Feb 28, 2011
Perhaps you'd like to explain how this data can be correct when the ice caps and seasonal snow caps are growing.


Seasonal ice will grow in the winter and melt in the summer, as always. The important trend noticed in the last 30 odd years is that the maximum sea ice extent (SIE) has been declining, and the minimum monthly SIE has also been declining. We can couple this with a seasonal melt (max and min) that has been increasing. I already provided you with this data in the form of the NSIDC link.

So adjusting data to what I want it to be, is correct scientific methodology? Since when?


Since never I believe. However, correcting the flaws in the records so that they more accurately match observations is standard scientific practice. There is still a warming trend.

BlankVellum
4 / 5 (4) Feb 28, 2011
They're using chaotic methodologies to measure an inherently chaotic system while expecting exacting results.


Who said anything about getting exacting results? Climate scientists fully recognize the uncertainty in the projections. It's called intellectual honesty. However, there is no uncertainty in the temperature reconstructions of the last several hundred years showing a rapid warming pattern which is extremely anomalous in a multi-century to millennial context. You'd have to show that there are discrepancies in every data source (the ones I linked earlier), as well as showing how numerous independent temp reconstructions, using different temperature proxies, are all showing consistent results.

Sure I have. Are you blind?


No, you didn't provide a single reference to show that climate scientists were predicting record droughts in Australia, which is what you asserted it.

Kind regards,
Adam

BlankVellum
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2011
At best, the paleo data is a guess based on assumptions and interpretations that may, or may not, be entirely correct.


(sigh)

I'm sure the foremost experts in the field of paleoecology would LOVE to know what they've been missing, especially from such an intellectual force such as yourself, who thinks he knows more about the climate than the climatologists do.
theFish
4.2 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2011
For anyone interested, a possible explanation for the more rigid winters in the Northern empishere (correlated with a warmer Artic) can be found here:

http:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBlLP6KTrsE

But I doubt that a gw denier would listen. I've learned that they are like creationists: they just don't listen to facts and reasoning because they get their opinions from a preconceived belief system, be it the Bible or the liberal bias of NASA.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2011
Global Climate Change has cycles. (No, not bicycles)
Is Mars getting warmer or colder?
Anyone know?

Mars is getting warmer due to changes in albedo, not solar influx.
No. CO2 is such a small part of the atmosphere (measured in parts per million) that it's influence is overstated.
No, that's completely inaccurate. The radiative forcing effects of CO2 have been well established since the 50's when we began studying radiative forcings and their effects on nuclear fallout.

If you would like to test how much change a very small amount of something can do, take a small sip of arsenic and let us know how that turns out. About 0.03% of your body weight's worth will most certainly have a very drastic effect.
hush1
not rated yet Feb 28, 2011
Mars is getting warmer due to changes in albedo, not solar influx.


That is interesting. Point me to source of that research.

And one last question:
Is the moon getting warmer or colder?
Anyone know?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2011
Mars is getting warmer due to changes in albedo, not solar influx.


That is interesting. Point me to source of that research.

And one last question:
Is the moon getting warmer or colder?
Anyone know?

Here is a great synopsis by a professional science journalist with supplied sources and references. This should answer your questions in their entirety, as well as refuting the majority of objections regarding the science.
htp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoSVoxwYrKI

For a direct reference to my statement on Mars: htp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7136/abs/nature05718.html
hush1
not rated yet Feb 28, 2011
Thks SH.
I have no objections. I have no clarity, as well. Oh well.

Astrophysically, do all orbits decay?
Are all orbits elliptical?

Energetically, the definition of a bond expresses an 'orbit' of least energy. Ground states? Dunno.
'Sub-ground states'? Dunno.

Of course, comparing gravitational and atomic forces is stupid.

Do planetary orbits give rise to planetary changes in temperature?

Of course, the variables to bury that simply question under, is sheer astronomical.

Not all simple questions have the longest answers.
What is life? What is death? lol
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2011
I never stated this.
You implied it with your incessant rantings about CO2 and by ignoring everything else.

What you don't seem to understand is that CO2 is the most potent GHG, after methane etc.
All you're saying here is that CO2 is the most potent GHG, except for a bunch of other stuff! It's drivel!

With links to peer reviewed source, such as the University of Washington PIOMAS graph, showing that Arctic sea ice volume has been on a steady decline since the late 1970s, and is now about 70% lower than the mean.
Wow. You used a graph which was taken out of context and now you think Arctic Ice volume is a whopping 70% lower than the mean? Really?

In context, that graph was about anomalies only, not total sea ice volume.

And here's an even better blog reference (since you like them) which explains that Arctic ice volume is up 25%!

http:/wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/29/arctic-ice-volume-has-increased-25-since-may-2008/
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2011
No, the second one was an Annual Arctic summary from the NSIDC, clearly showing a decline, not a blog.
It was another out of context graph posted to a blog site.

"Express yourself. Start a blog."

http:/wordpress.com

The rest you've managed to dismiss in such a laughably inept way that I couldn't possibly refute it, without getting muddied down in the murky depths of idiocy.
Here, all you're doing is acknowledging the validity of my arguments (albeit in a strawman form)!

Climate data doesn't just conveniently go out of date because you say it does. You'll have to try much much harder than that.
Oh, so we can just choose any arbitrary data from any arbitrary time and say it's relevant?

Cherry picking data you like and ignoring data you don't, isn't science.

You can't change the facts. The facts are that for the past two seasons, ice, snow, and precipitation have generally been increasing.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2011
Who said anything about getting exacting results? Climate scientists fully recognize the uncertainty in the projections. It's called intellectual honesty.
No. If they were honest, they'd be talking about the increasing ice from the past two years. Why are they (and you) so adamantly ignoring it?

However, there is no uncertainty in the temperature reconstructions of the last several hundred years showing a rapid warming pattern which is extremely anomalous in a multi-century to millennial context.
Really? You don't think there's likely to be any difference in the reliability and placement of a thermometer from 300 years ago and today? Really?

You'd have to show that there are discrepancies in every data source (the ones I linked earlier), as well as showing how numerous independent temp reconstructions, using different temperature proxies, are all showing consistent results.
Easily done. As I've shown, they modify the data to make it fit their expectations.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2011
No, you didn't provide a single reference to show that climate scientists were predicting record droughts in Australia, which is what you asserted it.
When did I say that? I think you have mixed the content a bit.

I'm sure the foremost experts in the field of paleoecology would LOVE to know what they've been missing, especially from such an intellectual force such as yourself, who thinks he knows more about the climate than the climatologists do.
Then explain the hundreds, to thousands of years long lags between CO2 spikes and temperature spikes in the paleo record...

...Ah, never mind. You've convinced me. You win. The data really isn't important. The piles of snow and ice are just figments of my imagination. We're all going to poach in a giant soup kettle, called Earth. It's the end of the world. It's over ...finished ...kaput. The final curtain. It was fun while it lasted.

Now, give me all your stuff since you won't have need of it.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2011
For anyone interested, a possible explanation for the more rigid winters in the Northern empishere (correlated with a warmer Artic) can be found here:

http:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBlLP6KTrsE
Nice video.


But I doubt that a gw denier would listen. I've learned that they are like creationists: they just don't listen to facts and reasoning because they get their opinions from a preconceived belief system, be it the Bible or the liberal bias of NASA.
I hope you aren't referring to me. I'm not a GW denier. I'm rather agnostic in this regard. Even if it's true, I'm not convinced it would necessarily be a bad thing.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2011
No, that's completely inaccurate. The radiative forcing effects of CO2 have been well established since the 50's when we began studying radiative forcings and their effects on nuclear fallout.
As discussed here:

http:/www.physorg.com/news196366845.html

...CO2 can also have a cooling effect due to infrared emission in the upper atmosphere.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2011
No, that's completely inaccurate. The radiative forcing effects of CO2 have been well established since the 50's when we began studying radiative forcings and their effects on nuclear fallout.
As discussed here:

http:/www.physorg.com/news196366845.html

...CO2 can also have a cooling effect due to infrared emission in the upper atmosphere.

Because it traps the heat in the troposphere. This is called fingerprinting, and is one of the multitude of ways in which CO2 is pointed out as a main driver in the current climatological change outside of natural variation. If the cause was solar insolation, you would see a proportionate thickening of the upper atmosphere. Any other facts you'd like to misunderstand?
BlankVellum
3 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2011
You implied it with your incessant rantings about CO2 and by ignoring everything else.


Another strawman. Well done.

All you're saying here is that CO2 is the most potent GHG, except for a bunch of other stuff! It's drivel!


No, I'm saying CO2 is the most important GHG, because it has a much higher radiative forcing. My source is AR4 Chapter 1, if you'd like to have a read. For instance, a CO2 concentration in ppm of about 340 will cause a radiative forcing of 1 (in W m^-2). In comparison, a concentration of methane of 1500 part per billion (ppb) will only cause a radiative forcing of 0.4 W m^-2.

BlankVellum
5 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2011
Apologies if I implied above that methane is less potent. My mistake. It is because methane is much less populous in Earth's atmosphere than CO2.
BlankVellum
1 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2011
When did I say that? I think you have mixed the content a bit.


Because you stated:

Right. And just a few years ago we were in a relatively dry climate cycle and they predicted permanent and catastrophic droughts. How conveniently we forget.


And fact you did reply, but with an obviously evasive answer:

Sure. As soon as it becomes apparent you will both read them, and be honest about it.


BlankVellum
3 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2011
Then explain the hundreds, to thousands of years long lags between CO2 spikes and temperature spikes in the paleo record...


When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not instigated by CO2 but instead by changes in the Earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycles, such as precession, eccentricity and obliquity). The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2, and the CO2 then amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, increasing temperatures throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. it's a double edged sword.

That CO2 lags temperature was predicted in 1990 by Claude Lorius, and this was before ice records were accurate enough to confirm a CO2 lag.

http:/www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-cosub2sub-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming.html

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2011
Because it traps the heat in the troposphere. This is called fingerprinting, and is one of the multitude of ways in which CO2 is pointed out as a main driver in the current climatological change outside of natural variation. If the cause was solar insolation, you would see a proportionate thickening of the upper atmosphere. Any other facts you'd like to misunderstand?
It appears it's you whom misunderstands.

I see you didn't watch theFish's video refence wherein it's explained that the atmosphere IS thickening (especially at the poles).

And considering all the ice and snow falling all about. Would you like to make a retraction for insisting increasing precipitation couldn't be casued by GW, as seen here (beginning Jun 04, 2010):

http:/www.physorg.com/news194769052.html
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2011
Another strawman. Well done.
Nope. Simple observation.

No, I'm saying CO2 is the most important GHG, because it has a much higher radiative forcing. My source is AR4 Chapter 1, if you'd like to have a read. For instance, a CO2 concentration in ppm of about 340 will cause a radiative forcing of 1 (in W m^-2). In comparison, a concentration of methane of 1500 part per billion (ppb) will only cause a radiative forcing of 0.4 W m^-2.
Now your comparing parts per million versus parts per billiion! You don't see the error? Really?

Apologies if I implied above that methane is less potent. My mistake. It is because methane is much less populous in Earth's atmosphere than CO2.
Oh good. You did see it. This is why folks are concerned about cattle flatulence... I digress.

My point stands. CO2 is not the primary factor in radiative forcing.

"Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect,"

http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2011
Because you stated:
Sorry, I don't see any assertion about Australia in there.

And fact you did reply, but with an obviously evasive answer:
Again, you're mixing content. This wasn't about Australia (specifically).

And I'm still waiting for it to become apparent you will both read the requested references, and be honest about it.

When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not instigated by CO2 but instead by changes in the Earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycles, such as precession, eccentricity and obliquity). The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2, and the CO2 then amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, increasing temperatures throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. it's a double edged sword.
That does nothing to explain the hundreds, to thousands of years gaps between max CO2 content and max temperatures. why don't they coincide?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2011
That CO2 lags temperature was predicted in 1990 by Claude Lorius, and this was before ice records were accurate enough to confirm a CO2 lag.
Here, you're only saying we don't have to worry about AGW for thousands of years (5,000 years, according to your article)!

Seriously. Why don't you see the logical fallacies?

Well anyway, I'm still waiting for you to give me all your stuff. You might as well, as according to you, CO2 is going to inexplicably destroy the planet in short order anyway.

I know, it doesn't make sense in light of the facts I have shown you. But hey. It's your logic and your claim. So go ahead. Prove you mean what you say. Give me your stuff.
BlankVellum
3 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2011
That does nothing to explain the hundreds, to thousands of years gaps between max CO2 content and max temperatures. why don't they coincide?


Which denier blogs are you getting these little gems from I wonder...

You misunderstand the complexity yet again, which makes me think you're just going for point scoring, rather than reading up on the science behind this oft cited contrarian meme (which has been covered extensively by actual climatologists).

Several ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. There mark the ends of ice ages that happen every 10,000 years or so. This does not mean CO2 doesn't cause global warming. Warmings takes 5000 years to be complete, whilst the lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that the CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of global warming. But what's more, CO2 on historical timescales have NOT lagged temperature rise...(cont)
BlankVellum
3 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2011
...(cont) We know why CO2 is increasing now, and the direct radiative effects of CO2 has been known for 100 years or so (an effect which you implicitly accepted, but in your subsequent posts you seem to discard in a rather arbitrary and ad hoc manner to suit your own floundering argument). In the absence of people, CO2 rises and falls naturally through exchange of carbon in the biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and the lithosphere but over a longer time period. What's important is that the rates of these natural exchanges are now being completely overwhelmed by our extraction of carbon from oil, coal and gas reserves and converting it to atmospheric CO2.
BlankVellum
3 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2011
I know, it doesn't make sense in light of the facts I have shown you. But hey. It's your logic and your claim. So go ahead. Prove you mean what you say. Give me your stuff.


If you want to act like a child, I could recommend other sites for you to do so. If, on the other hand, you want to have a serious scientific discussion about a serious scientific issue, let me know.
BlankVellum
3 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2011
Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect


CO2 is the most important GHG for REGULATING global temperatures. Because there is so much water vapour in the atmosphere, a small increase in its overall saturation level will have very little effect. By contrast, a small increase in CO2 will have a much larger effect. In addition, water vapour acts as more of a feedback mechanism than as a forcing. it is a 'reactive' GHG, as it has a short atmospheric lifespan of about 1 week. So if you were to pump a load of water vapour into the atmosphere, it would end up as rain or snow in under a week. if you pump excess CO2 into the atmosphere, it will hang around in the atmosphere for about 100 years. So the extra CO2 warms the atmosphere, which in turn means more water vapour will evaporate, causing more warming, which in turn causes more water evaporation, and more warming (etc). Luckily this process obeys the law of diminishing returns.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2011
Which denier blogs are you getting these little gems from I wonder...
Unless it's in quotes, or attributed to someone else, everything I write is my own.

You misunderstand the complexity yet again, which makes me think you're just going for point scoring, rather than reading up on the science behind this oft cited contrarian meme (which has been covered extensively by actual climatologists).
No. You're ignoring data which you disagree with - when it suits you.

Your claim that CO2 causes warming, isn't supported in the paleo record. Your contention that CO2 increases warming after warming has already begun, is only an unfounded conjecture. That CO2 rises during warming appears to be an effect, and not a cause of warming.

So essentially, there's no "smoking gun" for CO2 induced warming in the paleo record.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2011
Several ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. There mark the ends of ice ages that happen every 10,000 years or so. This does not mean CO2 doesn't cause global warming. Warmings takes 5000 years to be complete, whilst the lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that the CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of global warming.
But is doesn't prove it causes any warming at all. All you can say is CO2 content rose AFTER warming began and peaked after cooling began!. There's no evidence CO2 accelerated the warming, or maximized the warming.

But what's more, CO2 on historical timescales have NOT lagged temperature rise...(cont)
To what "historical timescales" do you refer? And, please provide some references.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2011
We know why CO2 is increasing now, and the direct radiative effects of CO2 has been known for 100 years or so (an effect which you implicitly accepted, but in your subsequent posts you seem to discard in a rather arbitrary and ad hoc manner to suit your own floundering argument).
Strawman. You're trying to tell me what my position is.

Where did I implicitly accept your CO2 radiative effects premise, and where did I deny it? All I've said is your singular focus on CO2, in such a complex system, is misguided.

What's important is that the rates of these natural exchanges are now being completely overwhelmed by our extraction of carbon from oil, coal and gas reserves and converting it to atmospheric CO2.
Why doesn't it occur to you that along with the CO2, we're also making water vapor?

Again:

"Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect,"

http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

So, why aren't you concerned about water vapor?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2011
If you want to act like a child, I could recommend other sites for you to do so. If, on the other hand, you want to have a serious scientific discussion about a serious scientific issue, let me know.
So the person I exposed from the beginning as being a blatant liar is telling ME this? Do you even know what it means to have a "serious scientific discussion?" I hardly think so.

CO2 is the most important GHG for REGULATING global temperatures. Because there is so much water vapour in the atmosphere, a small increase in its overall saturation level will have very little effect. By contrast, a small increase in CO2 will have a much larger effect.
But CO2 is turned over in the biosphere all the time, so I likewise doubt a little more is going to have much of an effect either.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2011
In addition, water vapour acts as more of a feedback mechanism than as a forcing. it is a 'reactive' GHG, as it has a short atmospheric lifespan of about 1 week. So if you were to pump a load of water vapour into the atmosphere, it would end up as rain or snow in under a week.
And CO2 would likely end up as the corn I eat, and the oxygen I breathe.

if you pump excess CO2 into the atmosphere, it will hang around in the atmosphere for about 100 years.
Do you even know how photosynthesis works?

So the extra CO2 warms the atmosphere, which in turn means more water vapour will evaporate, causing more warming, which in turn causes more water evaporation, and more warming (etc).
Which leads to more highly reflective cloud cover and snow cover and cool plant cover...

Luckily this process obeys the law of diminishing returns.
Again, your model is much too simple!
BlankVellum
3 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2011
Your claim that CO2 causes warming, isn't supported in the paleo record.


Yes it is.

Your contention that CO2 increases warming after warming has already begun, is only an unfounded conjecture


No, it isn't.

All you can say is CO2 content rose AFTER warming began and peaked after cooling began!. There's no evidence CO2 accelerated the warming, or maximized the warming.


I don't get it, are you denying basic physics or not? You keep shuttling back and forth. Anyway, in your shining brilliance, what caused the warming pattern in the 4200 years since the lag ended? Bearing in mind the well established facts of radiative forcing, which you deny, then accept, then deny again. Make up your mind.

To what "historical timescales" do you refer? And, please provide some references.


Over the last few hundred years or so.

http:/climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

The first graph provided by NOAA, indicating a clear warming trend in conjunction with a CO2 rise. No lag.
BlankVellum
3 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2011
Why doesn't it occur to you that along with the CO2, we're also making water vapor?


It did. I responded. It is a reactive GHG. It does not have much to do with warming because there is lots of it, and a small increase will not have much effect. CO2 has a longer lifespan, meaning it is more important in regulating global temperatures. In addition, the dry polar regions will have little WV, meaning CO2 changes can have very large effects.

So the person I exposed from the beginning as being a blatant liar is telling ME this


Where was I exposed as a blatant liar?

Do you even know how photosynthesis works?


Yes. You're question is meaningless.

Which leads to more highly reflective cloud cover and snow cover and cool plant cover...


Albedo due to cloud cover has been taken into account in the climate models. It has been shown that it would be insufficient to offset the predicted positive feedback from excess CO2 in the atmosphere.

BlankVellum
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2011
By the way, if you want to educate yourself, I'd recommend AR4's FAQ. It can be found below:

https:/www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/faq/wg1_faqIndex.html

If you want to disagree with the conclusions drawn from the 10,000 or so peer reviewed articles used in the report, I'd be delighted if you would take it up with the real climatologists.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2011
Yes it is.

No, it isn't
And you accused ME of arguing like a child? You'll have to do better. Prove it.

I don't get it, are you denying basic physics or not? You keep shuttling back and forth. Anyway, in your shining brilliance, what caused the warming pattern in the 4200 years since the lag ended? Bearing in mind the well established facts of radiative forcing, which you deny, then accept, then deny again. Make up your mind.
Why couldn't it simply be whatever started the warming to begin with?

Over the last few hundred years or so.

http:/climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Again, based upon OLD data (cherry-picking again, are we?). Check the references.

The first graph provided by NOAA, indicating a clear warming trend in conjunction with a CO2 rise. No lag.
Right. That same old tired graph Al Gore used to predict we'd be like 10 degrees warmer by now. Sorry, it just aint happening.

And, you'll have to explain away the recent ice advances.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2011
It did. I responded. It is a reactive GHG. It does not have much to do with warming because there is lots of it, and a small increase will not have much effect. CO2 has a longer lifespan, meaning it is more important in regulating global temperatures. In addition, the dry polar regions will have little WV, meaning CO2 changes can have very large effects.
But has it occurred to you the poles receive the smallest amount of solar energy?

Where was I exposed as a blatant liar?
I exposed you for a liar on February 24th (multiple times!), when you misrepresented my references.

Yes. You're question is meaningless.
Then you obviously don't understand the carbon cycle. Here, try learning a little:

http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

Albedo due to cloud cover has been taken into account in the climate models. It has been shown that it would be insufficient to offset the predicted positive feedback from excess CO2 in the atmosphere.
References?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2011
By the way, if you want to educate yourself, I'd recommend AR4's FAQ. It can be found below:

https:/www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/faq/wg1_faqIndex.html
This is from people who are PAID to advocate for "climate change."

If you want to disagree with the conclusions drawn from the 10,000 or so peer reviewed articles used in the report, I'd be delighted if you would take it up with the real climatologists.
Sure. Send 'em on over. Let them explain the recent ice advances in spite of increasing CO2...
BlankVellum
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2011
And you accused ME of arguing like a child? You'll have to do better. Prove it.


You were the one who asserted that CO2 doesn't cause warming i the paleo record. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your assertion.

Why couldn't it simply be whatever started the warming to begin with?


Milankovitch cycles are not sufficient alone to explain the consistent warming pattern over such large distances. You would need to include positive feedback from ice sheet albedo (less ice means less reflection means more warming), and increased GHGs (more warming means more CO2 means increased temperatures).

[qAgain, based upon OLD data (cherry-picking again, are we?). Check the references.]

This little mantra of yours is becoming exquisitely hilarious you know. Data does not go out of date because you say it does. There is no reason to discard the highly accurate data collected which shows a warming trend.
BlankVellum
3 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2011
This is from people who are PAID to advocate for "climate change."


Ah, so its a conspiracy. better yet, an utterly unqualified assertion of conspiracy. Fantastic. Just so you know, the IPCC was set up BECAUSE of the scientific consensus on climate change. The huge quantity of evidence found in favour of AGW was overwhelming, and the consequences were seen to be dire enough to take action.

Sure. Send 'em on over. Let them explain the recent ice advances in spite of increasing CO2...


You are a marvellous example of the Dunning Kruger Effect. Well done.

http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
BlankVellum
3 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2011
References?


AR4 WG1 chapter 1 'Summary for Policy Makers'p4 fig. SPM.2
BlankVellum
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2011
For someone who claims he does not deny global warming, you're making a fair effort at denying global warming. Carry on.
MikeyK
4 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2011

But I doubt that a gw denier would listen. I've learned that they are like creationists: they just don't listen to facts and reasoning because they get their opinions from a preconceived belief system, be it the Bible or the liberal bias of NASA.


Actually they ARE creationists. Their agenda is exactly the same; to place doubt on the scientific method and 'muddy the waters'. They have no scientific background (usually TV weathermen or something similar )and want the people to go back to their church, wave pistols around...you get the picture.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2011
You were the one who asserted that CO2 doesn't cause warming i the paleo record. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your assertion.
When did I make that assertion?

Milankovitch cycles are not sufficient alone to explain the consistent warming pattern over such large distances. You would need to include positive feedback from ice sheet albedo (less ice means less reflection means more warming), and increased GHGs (more warming means more CO2 means increased temperatures).
Sure. And as you outlined here, CO2 is but (at best) a small part of the complete picture.

Deglaciation starts on its own, without any CO2 influence. It ends on its own, despite a continuing rise in CO2. Therefore, logic dictates CO2's effect on degalciation is minimal (at best). That is, it certainly doesn't appear to be the dominate factor you're insisting.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2011

This little mantra of yours is becoming exquisitely hilarious you know. Data does not go out of date because you say it does. There is no reason to discard the highly accurate data collected which shows a warming trend.
Data DOES go out of date when the data changes. Denying the validity of new data, just because you don't like it, is a form of scientific misconduct.

"Forms of scientific misconduct include:

*fabrication - the publication of deliberately false or misleading research, often subdivided into:

* Obfuscation - the omission of critical data or results. Example: Only reporting positive outcomes and not adverse outcomes.

* Falsification - manipulation of research data and processes in order to reflect or prevent a certain result."

http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct#Forms_of_scientific_misconduct

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2011
Ah, so its a conspiracy. better yet, an utterly unqualified assertion of conspiracy.
Strawman. I never suggested there's a conspiracy.

Fantastic. Just so you know, the IPCC was set up BECAUSE of the scientific consensus on climate change. The huge quantity of evidence found in favour of AGW was overwhelming, and the consequences were seen to be dire enough to take action.
What "dire consequences?" More rain? ...great for increased food production. More arable land? ...great for increased food production. Do a little research. Greenland farmers are bringing in bumper yields. Even the African Sahara is greening!

http:/news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html

So, what's the problem?

You are a marvellous example of the Dunning Kruger Effect. Well done.
Ad hominems now? Really?

Environmental protection just happens to be my job. What's yours?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2011
AR4 WG1 chapter 1 'Summary for Policy Makers'p4 fig. SPM.2
Again with the old data?

This is just too funny. This is one of the very same references you requested which erroneously predicted increased worldwide drought.

"Area affected by droughts increases"

(p8 Table SPM.2)

Seriously. Get a clue and use some current data.

For someone who claims he does not deny global warming, you're making a fair effort at denying global warming. Carry on.
I'm not denying GW. I'm just suggesting it isn't all gloom and doom. And, I'm suggesting it isn't nearly so severe as predicted. In fact, it might even be a good thing.

That some warming has occurred is evident. That it's an emergency requiring immediate attention and catastrophic economic changes, is much less certain.

Seriously. In spite of what the AGW alarmists say, the sky just doesn't appear to be falling.

BlankVellum
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2011
When did I make that assertion?


You stated previously:

Then explain the hundreds, to thousands of years long lags between CO2 spikes and temperature spikes


Forgetful aren't we.

And as you outlined here, CO2 is but (at best) a small part of the complete picture.


Wrong. CO2 is the most important GHG driving current warming trends. Your inability to grasp this most basic of facts about the AGW theory is staggering, but then you have shown yourself fairly adept at misusing or misinterpreting information to suit your own confirmation bias.

Data DOES go out of date when the data changes.


The data hasn't changed. The warming trend is now as well established as the veracity of General Relativity. The data for the latter has not 'went out of date'. Same for the former. If it HAS went out of date, you have done nothing more than assert it, whilst providing absolutely nothing in the way of evidence to back up your case.

BlankVellum
3 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2011
This is just too funny. This is one of the very same references you requested which erroneously predicted increased worldwide drought.


There has been an increase in worldwide drought. See evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa and the famous Amazonian drought (which is staggering, and predicted to have adverse consequences on the rainforest). Hutrya et al (2005) looked at the sharp transition between forest and savannah and related that to the coupling of drought incidence and wild fires with the forest ecosystem.

NOAA has the following to say:

"In areas where a drought or excessive wetness usually accompanies an El Niño or La Niña, these dry or wet spells have been more intense in recent years. Further, there is some evidence for increasing drought worldwide, however in the U.S. there is no evidence for increasing drought."
BlankVellum
3 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2011
Deglaciation starts on its own, without any CO2 influence. It ends on its own, despite a continuing rise in CO2


Your just making stuff up. You have absolutely no understanding of the mechanisms of AGW, and that leads me to question why you are asserting such certainty on the matter, over and above the important work done by actual climate scientists. Glacial termination starts with Milankovitch cycles. It DOES NOT END with those same cycles. Radiative forcing plays a large part. Seriously, please educate yourself before posting your ignorance on a public forum.
BlankVellum
3 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2011
That some warming has occurred is evident


Yet you have spent the entirety of this thread trying (and failing horribly) to undermine the very well understood mechanisms by which said warming occurs. Odd.

That it's an emergency requiring immediate attention and catastrophic economic changes, is much less certain.


Really? Now that is one serious way of burying your head in the sand. Allow me to point out some basic facts, and show you that your nonchalant attitude is utterly unwarranted.

Firstly, a warming world as a result of the greenhouse effect is predicted to raise average global temperatures by about 3 degrees Celsius by the end of the 21st century. To put this into context, increase in GMST that brought Earth out of the last Ice Age 14,000 years ago was was about 4 or 5 degrees celsius. This climate change took thousands of years. AGW, by contrast, will occur at a rate unprecedented in Earth entire history....(cont)
BlankVellum
3 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2011
...(cont) This will probably be too much for many ecosystems to handle, and they will not be able to adapt, and the rate of species extinction will most likely increase. Human agriculture, forestry, drylands, water resources and health will all be affected. Such impacts will be related to changes in precipitation (rainfall and snowfall), sea level, and the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, resulting from global warming. Countries already in dire economic situations will suffer the most (despite having caused the least pollution). They will be the least able to adapt.

Shall I mention the expected rise in sea levels, ocean acidification (destroying the coral reefs) and oxygen depletion? You need not go further than Wikipedia. Failing that, AR4 has predictions, of which one of them, the expected sea level rise, was TOO LOW, in light of current evidence.

AR5 is currently in progress,and is expected to contain much the same information as AR4. Out of date data?Not quite
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2011
You stated previously:

Forgetful aren't we.
You've taken it out of context. I also stated:

"CO2 is such a small part of the atmosphere (measured in parts per million) that it's influence is overstated. Water vapor is by far, more influential. And then there are variables like biosphere effects, total solar energy reaching the earth, absorption, reflectivity, and so on. Blaming a warming trend on CO2 alone, in such a complex system, is like your doctor saying your heart is failing because you ate too much on one particular day."

and:

"Sure, but it's not the only, or single most important thing which affects the climate."

and:

"You're an idiot if you think CO2 is the only thing that affects radiative forcing."

and:

"My point stands. CO2 is not the primary factor in radiative forcing."

and:

"There's no evidence CO2 accelerated the warming, or maximized the warming."

...and so on.
BlankVellum
3 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2011
Oh, and I thought this was hilarious:

Strawman. I never suggested there's a conspiracy.


Um, actually you did:

This is from people who are PAID to advocate for "climate change."


That's some fairly obvious conspiratorial thinking there friend.

BlankVellum
3 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2011
...and so on.


That's all very well and good. However, you stated rather explicitly that there is no evidence that CO2 caused warming i the paleo record. This is not quote mining. THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2011
...you have done nothing more than assert it, whilst providing absolutely nothing in the way of evidence to back up your case.
What? Are you still lying about my references? Did you not see the evidence for sea ice advances in the past two seasons?

See evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa
Are you an idiot? I just posted a reference which describes the GREENING of the Sahara.


Hutrya et al (2005)...

NOAA... (also from 2005)
Again, with the outdated data! What's up with that?

Coincidentally, the Amazon is currently in a drought (after heavy rains in the preceding years). But that proves nothing. Periodic drought is normal, virtually everywhere.

Your just making stuff up.
Check the data yourself. It's old enough even you can find it.

Yet you have spent the entirety of this thread...
There you go with the strawman again, trying to tell me what my position is. Let me try that:

You agree with me on every point.

There. Argument resolved.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2011
Firstly... (followed by a bunch of dire predictions)
Sorry, AGW alarmist predictions simply don't hold up. This is why they're now calling it "climate change." That way, they can change their predictions with the weather and always be right!

Seriously. Get a clue. The earth has been a lot warmer in the past, and when it was, it was much greener!

That's some fairly obvious conspiratorial thinking there friend.
Nope. It's an observation.

That's all very well and good. However, you stated rather explicitly that there is no evidence that CO2 caused warming i the paleo record. This is not quote mining. THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID
And it's true. There is evidence CO2 rises WITH warming. But this doesn't necessarily imply it's casual.
BlankVellum
3 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2011
Are you still lying about my references? Did you not see the evidence for sea ice advances in the past two seasons?


Ah yes, the article from the Royal Society (Mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet) from 2006. My source....2009. So, BY YOUR EXACT ARGUMENT, your data is 'out of date'. Good grief, third time shooting yourself in the foot. Hard luck man.

Oh, and still nothing rebutting the huge quantities of evidence that the Arctic is melting, and at an increasing rate. Your position is extremely weak.

Again, with the outdated data! What's up with that?


You must be cognitively challenged, no doubt about it. Not even a troll could be this consistently incapable of uttering such stupidity. Can you give me ONE SINGLE REASON, why the data from Hutrya et al is outdated? Just one :)

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2011
@BlankVellum:

It's been fun, but Im all done here. Enjoy the last word.

P.S. In consideration of your dire predictions, give me all your stuff. :)
BlankVellum
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2011
Sorry, AGW alarmist predictions simply don't hold up. This is why they're now calling it "climate change." That way, they can change their predictions with the weather and always be right!


And your response to peer reviewed scientific evidence is....empty rhetoric and bare assertion fallacies. Nice one.

Are you an idiot? I just posted a reference which describes the GREENING of the Sahara.


*sigh*

http:/pubs.usgs.gov/gip/deserts/desertification/

Nope. It's an observation.


No, its an assertion, with no evidence to back it up.

And it's true. There is evidence CO2 rises WITH warming. But this doesn't necessarily imply it's casual.


Yes, just like a sudden influenza pandemic with large numbers of deaths is not causal. Idiot.

BlankVellum
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2011
@ubavontuba

Have fun walking off with that tail dangling between your legs. I enjoyed listening to you bastardizing climate science to suit your own woefully inept confirmation bias, and debunking the utter shit that you posted as a result. Some people really are immune to reasoning. Again, to quote the theory which describes you so accurately:

"The DunningKruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to appreciate their mistakes.[1] The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their own abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority. This leads to the situation in which less competent people rate their own ability higher than more competent people."

Ouch.

BlankVellum
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2011
@ubavontuba

http:/greenmonk.net/what-if-we-create-a-better-world-for-nothing/
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2011
Just some final points of fact:

I wrote:

Did you not see the evidence for sea ice advances in the past TWO seasons? (Caps for emphasis)
and you replied:

"Ah yes, the article from the Royal Society from 2006."
Do you not even know what year it is? Or, is it you can't count as high as "two?"

Can you give me ONE SINGLE REASON, why the data from Hutrya et al is outdated?
Uh, its being more than six years old isn't good enough for you?
*sigh*

http:/pubs.usgs.gov/gip/deserts/desertification/
Really? You counter with an article that's nearly 12 years older than my reference and you think it's valid? Really?

...you bastardizing climate science to suit your own woefully inept confirmation bias...
Really? This from a moron who thinks 14 year old data is more relevant today than 2 year old data?
The DunningKruger effect...
Obviously describes you perfectly.

Ouch.
"Ouch" is right.
BlankVellum
3 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2011
Uh, its being more than six years old isn't good enough for you?


Um, no. Because it isn't a reason. Are you really this stupid?

Really? This from a moron who thinks 14 year old data is more relevant today than 2 year old data?


You haven't provided any references suggesting that the Sahara is 'greening'. Try harder darling.

BlankVellum
3 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2011
http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification

"Another example of desertification occurring is in the Sahel. The chief cause of desertification in the Sahel is described to be slash-and-burn farming in which soil degration is increased do to winds removing unprotected topsoil. Decreases in rainfall are also a cause as well as destruction of local perennials.[4] The Sahara is expanding south at a rate of up to 48 kilometres per year."

http:/www.ciesin.org/docs/002-178/002-178.html