Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumNo Need to Panic About Global Warming
In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.
The lack of warming for more than a decadeindeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projectionssuggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Wow. 16 scientist make this claim and every rightwing GW denialist will join the chorus.
handmade34
(22,755 posts)Hardiness Zones for growers
http://www.arborday.org/media/mapchanges.cfm
a simple pattern
(608 posts)madmom
(9,681 posts)spring flowers coming up in my garden right now.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,933 posts)It was a long, hard Winter, but somehow, weve made it through to Spring
tabatha
(18,795 posts)I hope there is a rebuttal.
Bigmack
(8,020 posts)XemaSab
(60,212 posts)Last edited Fri Jan 27, 2012, 07:50 PM - Edit history (2)
is one giant rebuttal.
ETA: Here's my personal favorite:
ETA: Fourth time's the charm. This graph has last year's melt on it, right on trend.
Dead_Parrot
(14,478 posts)One of the nice things about the GISS interface is you can ask it just this sort of question. So on the one hand we've got "the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now", and on the other we've got the temperature for the last 10 years compared to the previous 10:
Or, if we prefer, the last 10 years compared to 2000:
Or the last 5 years compared to the previous 5:
'Lack of global warming' my arse.
Which reminds me, I must update the one on the pinned thread.
edit: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/ if anyone ones to play.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,933 posts)FWIW: Heres the latest presentation of the data:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
[font size=1]Arctic sea ice volume anomaly from PIOMAS updated once a month. Daily Sea Ice volume anomalies for each day are computed relative to the 1979 to 2010 average for that day of the year. The trend for the period 1979- present is shown in blue. Shaded areas show one and two standard deviations from the trend. Error bars indicate the uncertainty of the monthly anomaly plotted once per year.[/font]
It looks to me like the volume is still going down
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)doesn't give a sense of the scale of the thing.
So we're 10,000 cubic kilometers below the average. I have no innate understanding of what that means. Is it a lot, or a little?
Meanwhile, the totals by month with accompanying projections just bring it home.
We've lost a third of the ice since 2007. We're projected to lose it ALL in three years.
DURING THE NEXT PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION, THE ICE WILL PROBABLY BE GONE.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,933 posts)Like I said, too depressing.
(This little guy has always reminded me of a scared block of melting ice.)
markpkessinger
(8,381 posts)wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Lindzen is a qualified dissenting opinion, but by every conceivable interpretation an outlier.