Earth Watch, Climate Wars & an ozone map from 1979-2008

[stog]

worryingly i have witnessed folks talking of "no climate change etc (where co2 mechanism is perhaps questionable and western temperatures don't show increase etc) however.........

polar melt and sea level rise is a reality + the ozone hole over Antarctica (accepted by most to be man induced), is much increased since 1979 - by a lot -- see attached map

ozone map 1979-2008

http://cires.colorado.edu

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=38835


good info on arctic ice here .. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html

[stog]

[stog]

see the Earth Art Photo gallery Art of a Changing World here

[spielberg]

Anyone still a denier has not read (or oftentimes understood!) the arguments. Best recent precis is here on the Beeb.
(Slang guide for non Brits: "Beeb" = BBC)

[stog]

Earth Watch http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/

[stog]

good factual but accessible & watchable BBC programme Hot Planet available to view for next 6 days..........

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00jf6md

[stog]

also
Earth: The Climate Wars
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00djvq9

the 2 nd program is available for 7 days

Dr Iain Stewart investigates the counter-attack launched by global warming sceptics in the 1990s.

[stog]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8421935.stm#id8420000/8421900/8421918

[stog]

[stog]

What will happen when oil runs out? The thoughts of some Year 9 science pupils in Loreto College Coleraine

nice link on oil supplies
http://www.lcc.ukf.net/KS3Work/oilrunsout.htm

[stog]

i read with alarm one fibsters interpretation of current conditions of cold in the populous northern hemisphere as further proof of his scepticism re 'warm earth'. but as he has me gagged (perhaps his only sensible action!) i did not bother engaging in the shouts - though a lot did thank heavens..

it is a fact that newfoundland greenland etc are way warmer than usual while we in uk and northern states are colder than usual....

here are some more informative articles

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8451756.stm#

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/01/arctic_conditions_arctic_cause.html

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/polar-pressure-pattern-driving-chill-nearly-off-chart/

[stog]

Please take 5 minutes to listen to the words of Severine Suzuki, the then 12 year old daughter of a famous environmentalist professor, making a speech in front of the United Nations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JvVf1piHXg#

[socksey]

Wow!  Out of the mouths of babes!     She really put us in our place, didn't she?!   

Thanks for sharing this, stog.  It was quite riveting.  I think I'm gonna clean out my closets and get rid of a lot of excess clothing and other things that someone less fortunate than me can use.   

socksey



I don't know why we are here, but I'm pretty sure that it is not in order to enjoy ourselves. - Ludwig Wittgenstein

[stog]

[NIHILIST]

Very impressive, I'm going out and buy a new watch, a pair of alligator shoes, and the largest, gas-guzzling SUV i can find. I just don't know any other way to overcome my sorrow.

Bob

[NIHILIST]

The ozone hole the child refers to is repairing itself, something scientists told us wasn't supposed to happen. Polar bear populations are INCREASING. The mass of Antarctic ice is INCREASING, contrary to what the global warmists would have you believe. The Nobel Prize winning climate panel of the international body the child is addressing has been completely discredited as has their Nobel co-winner Al Gore. The single most important climate scientist on the planet has been caught cooking the books, has been forced to step down from his lofty position, and in testimony before Parliament admitted there hasn't been any warming in 15 years.

If you were to feel any outrage at all, I suggest it should be directed toward the "scientists" who have perpetrated this colossal swindle. Yet, too many of you continue to look under your pillows expecting the tooth fairy's leavings.

If the UN were to truly be effective it should concentrate on real pollution issues; the fouling of our rivers, lakes and oceans. Each nation of the world should act similarly. If big companies persist in dumping waste into our rivers, SHUT THEM DOWN !!!

The social ills the child speaks of in Latin America and Africa are largely the result of centuries of despotic rule . The Brazilian government allows the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest, supposedly in the interest of making more land available for growing food, and, ergo, a better future for its children. At the same time, approximately 2 million homeless children live on the streets of Sao Paulo. I have seen this first hand.

Now we learn that Colombia's deforestation to clear land for planting coca contributes to global warming.

In the great cities of Europe, young children who have been sold to modern-day Fagins by their parents, form gangs and pick pockets. I have encountered this personally in Paris and Rome.

In Africa and Asia, parents intentionally maim their children so as to make them more sympathetic as street beggars. The civilized world has poured billions into famine relief in Africa only to see it looted by the politicians charged with their childrens' futures.

It's certainly noble to feel sympathy, but guilt ? I think not. Civilization has been on the road to self-destruction since the beginning of time, whether its the Inquisition, institutionalized slavery, witch burnings or the Holocaust. Each generation must make of it what it can and , hopefully, improve things for the next. This has occurred in some parts of the world, but sadly not in others.

This child is saying nothing different than my generation said to our parents, only the topics are different. I wish that what she's urging could be made to happen, unfortunately I've lived long enough to know it's not very likely.


Bob

[dorbel]

Polar bear populations are INCREASING.

This myth is comprehensively dealt with at http://www.grist.org/article/will-polar-bears-go-extinct-by-2030-part-i/
Their final argument is the most chilling, which is that Arctic ice is diappearing at a great and increasing rate, as one can see on http://nsidc.org/ , the USA's own snow and ice date center. The arctic seals breed and raise their young on arctic sea ice and it is on seals that polar bears depend for their food supply. No habitat, no seals, no bears.

If the UN were to truly be effective it should concentrate on real pollution issues; the fouling of our rivers, lakes and oceans. Each nation of the world should act similarly. If big companies persist in dumping waste into our rivers, SHUT THEM DOWN !!!

There are two inconsistencies here. First. one can't logically say that it is wrong to pollute the oceans but ok to pollute the air. The atmosphere and the ocean are interdependent parts of a global system. Either pollution matters or it doesn't. Second, who is to shut down the polluting companies? Government? How does the writer, implacably opposed to governement interference in any sphere, square that circle?

Finally, global warming itself. Governments worldwide have asked scientists to set up bodies to gather data to see whether global warming is happening, and if it is happening, why. All of these bodies arrive at the same conclusion, which is that it is happening and that greenhouse gases produced by humans are the prime cause. The only matter for serious debate is how fast it is happening, but as even the most conservative estimates will have very serious consquences action is obviously necessary. It is however clear that the process is extremely complex, non-linear and subject to wide local variations, viz the entirely correct observation that the Antartic is colder than "usual" with the result that Southern Polar Ice is actually increasing at present. Obviously, only observing the global picture over periods as long as possible can produce meaningful data. To point to one area of the planet or one year and say that results there disprove the long term global outlook is not scientific.
Shooting the messenger when the news is bad is an old trick. Not trusting the scientists that one has chosen to write the message and relying instead on populist broadcasters for one's opinion is indeed believing in the tooth fairy.

[Zorba]

The ozone hole the child refers to is repairing itself, something scientists told us wasn't supposed to happen.

Wrong.

The ozone hole has merely stabilized, after decreasing rapidly until the 1990s. It's interesting to note that in 1987 the Montreal Protocol was signed, which came into effect on Jan 1 1989. This is an international treaty designed to protect the ozone layer by phasing out the production of a number of substances believed to be responsible for ozone depletion.



So, the world acted on a global threat, and it's showing results in as much as it seems to have halted the ozone depletion. We're still not back on the levels as seen before 1980 though.

The mass of Antarctic ice is INCREASING, contrary to what the global warmists would have you believe.

Twice wrong.

Global warming science expects more precipitation in general. This can also mean more snow, in certain areas. Whether this balances against higher temperatures causing more melting or rain is dependent on many (local) factors.

Science would not have you believe something false; it's simply your own lack of scientific knowledge and logical reasoning skills that's causing you problems here.

Furthermore, there is (yet) no way that we can actually even measure the mass of Antarctic ice with good accuracy. Recent data actually suggests the Antarctic ice mass is decreasing over the past few years:

A 2002 analysis of NASA satellite data from 1979-1999 showed that areas of Antarctica where ice was increasing outnumbered areas of decreasing ice roughly 2:1. [7] The general trend shows that a warming climate in the southern hemisphere would transport more moisture to Antarctica, causing the interior ice sheets to grow, while calving events along the coast will increase, causing these areas to shrink. However more recent satellite data, which measures changes in the gravity  of the ice mass, suggests that the total amount of ice in Antarctica has begun decreasing in the past few years. [8] Another recent study compared the ice leaving the ice sheet, by measuring the ice velocity and thickness along the coast, to the amount of snow accumulation over the continent. This found that the East Antarctic Ice Sheet was in balance but the West Antarctic Ice Sheet was losing mass. This was largely due to acceleration of ice streams  such as Pine Island Glacier. These results agree closely with the gravity changes. [9] [10]

The Nobel Prize winning climate panel of the international body the child is addressing has been completely discredited

Wrong again, the bulk of IPCC's scientific conclusions are still endorsed by nearly all national science associations and an overwhelming majority of relevant scientists.

Various scientific bodies have issued official statements praising the IPCC and endorsing their findings.

    * Joint science academies' statement-2001

    The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus.[98]

    * Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

    We concur with the climate science assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001 ... We endorse the conclusions of the IPCC assessment...[99]

    * Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

    CMOS endorses the process of periodic climate science assessment carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and supports the conclusion, in its Third Assessment Report, which states that the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.[100]

    * European Geosciences Union

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change...is the main representative of the global scientific community....IPCC third assessment report...represents the state-of-the-art of climate science supported by the major science academies around the world and by the vast majority of scientific researchers and investigations as documented by the peer-reviewed scientific literature.[101]

    * National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US)

    Internationally, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)... is the most senior and authoritative body providing scientific advice to global policy makers.[102]

    * National Research Council (US)

    The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.[103]

    * Network of African Science Academies

    The IPCC should be congratulated for the contribution it has made to public understanding of the nexus that exists between energy, climate and sustainability.[104]

    * Royal Meteorological Society

    In response to the release of the Fourth Assessment Report, the Royal Meteorological Society referred to the IPCC as “The world's best climate scientists”.[105]

    * Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London

    The most authoritative assessment of climate change in the near future is provided by the Inter-Governmental Panel for Climate Change.[106]

The single most important climate scientist on the planet has been caught cooking the books,

Wrong twice.

There is no "single most important climate scientist". Science, especially one like this, is a massive co-production.

Second, Mr. Mann has actually been cleared of most charges, by several independent reviews:

Pennsylvania State University announced in December 2009 it would review the work of Michael Mann, in particular looking at anything that had not already been addressed in an earlier National Academy of Sciences review which had found some faults with his methodology but agreed with the results.[46][47][48]  In response, Mann said he would welcome the review.[48]  As a result of the inquiry, the investigatory committee determined there was no credible evidence Mann suppressed or falsified data, destroyed email, information and/or data related to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, or misused privileged or confidential information.

If you were to feel any outrage at all, I suggest it should be directed toward the "scientists" who have perpetrated this colossal swindle. Yet, too many of you continue to look under your pillows expecting the tooth fairy's leavings.

As shown above, the only swindler here is you.

[NIHILIST]

I never stated it's OK TO POLLUTE THE AIR and challenge dorbel to produce any such quote.

I never made any reference to Michael Mann, though his HOCKEY STICK GRAPH has been discredited. I don't think professors at Penn State testify before Parliament.

Bob

[NIHILIST]

Just a few final points here.

The embattled ex-head of the research center at the heart of the Climate-gate scandal, Dr Phil Jones, dropped a bombshell over the weekend, admitting in an interview with the BBC that there has been no global warming over the past 15 years.

Soooooooooooooo, If greenhouse gases produced by humans are the prime cause, and more and more of these gases have been discharged into the atmosphere in recent years, why no concominant increase in temperature ?

Scientists at the heart of the Climategate row were yesterday accused by a leading academic body of undermining science's credibility.

The Institute of Physics said 'worrying implications' had been raised after it was revealed the University of East Anglia had manipulated data on global warming.

This, to me, is the essence of the issue. If the issue is so clear, why the need to manipulate data ? It's this and the laughable, flagrant errors in the UN's Climate Panel Report that destroy any credibility these alleged scientists might once have had.

See, guys, once the top scientist admits to cooking the books to suit his own agenda, and breaking British law by refusing Freedom Of Information Act requests by other scientists to release the CRU data, and admitting after years of statements to the contrary, that there's been NO GLOBAL WARMING in the last 15 years, the jig is up.


Bob

PS I certainly don't want to neglect the poor Polar bears.   

Though polar bears are uniquely adapted to the Arctic region, they are not wedded solely to its coldest parts nor are they restricted to a specific Arctic diet. Aside from a variety of seals, they eat fish, kelp, caribou, ducks, sea birds and scavenged whale and walrus carcasses. In addition, Arctic air temperatures were as high as present temperatures in the 1930s and polar bears survived.

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), an international organization that has worked for 50 years to protect endangered species, has also written on the threats posed to polar bears from global warming. However, their own research seems to undermine their fears. According to the WWF, about 20 distinct polar bear populations exist, accounting for approximately 22,000 polar bears worldwide. WWF figures show population patterns do not show a temperature-linked decline:

•Only two of the distinct population groups, accounting for about 16.4 percent of the total population, are decreasing.
•Ten populations, approximately 45.4 percent of the total number, are stable.
•Another two populations - about 13.6 percent of the total number of polar bears - are increasing.
The status of the remaining six populations (whether they are stable, increasing or decreasing in size) is unknown