What A Global Warming "Hoax" Looks Like

[Naturist Mark]

Interesting post. I thought you said that, with global warming, we would higher highs and lower lows. Or is it that we get more snow even with warmer winter days?

What about Australia? And China? Do we have the same records and trends there? Or is it just in the US that we have the data?

Both.

With more energy in the weather systems there is potential for more extremes in either direction, but with warming the ratio between high and low records will favor the highs. As for winter storms - warmer winters mean more atmospheric moisture and potentially more snowfall - as long as those higher temps are still low enough for snow.

Whoever made those observations was dealing with US weather, probably just because they are in the US. I would not be surprised if similar ratios hold true for most other places in the world. But there are likely to be some places where global trends produce counter trends in local areas - for instance ocean warming can produce changes in directions and amounts of ocean currents which might cause warming currents to miss an island or coast that usually is kept warmer. This happened temporarily in Western Europe a couple of Christmas's ago when warming in the Canadian arctic caused strong winds along the Greenland west coast that temporarily diverted the Gulf Stream, plunging the British Isles into a severe cold spell. One of the global warming 'doomsday' theories is that the 'Atlantic Conveyor' could be permanently disrupted, plunging Western Europe from a mild climate to a Siberian climate more in keeping with its latitude.

[Baron Lake]

London will probably try for the Winter Games too. (Alpine events in Scotland)

[jon71]

As if it were needed here is even more evidence. The ice covering Greenland has been melting unusually fast this year. One more sign of the times.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...usaolp00000009

[Gloria]

As if it were needed here is even more evidence. The ice covering Greenland has been melting unusually fast this year. One more sign of the times.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...usaolp00000009

Good article. I like the part.....

"Goddard glaciologist Lora Koenig said that similar melting events occur about every 150 years, and this event is consistent with that schedule, citing the previous 1889 melt."

Where did all the man made CO2 come from back in 1889???

[Naturist Mark]

Where did all the man made CO2 come from back in 1889???

Mostly Coal, with inputs from agriculture and deforestation.

[Gloria]

Mostly Coal, with inputs from agriculture and deforestation.

But Mark..........

There was less man made CO2 in 1889. Today we have more coal, agriculture and deforestation as well as huge evil industries belching gazillions of metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere and the same "event" happens today......??? Something does not compute.

Lets see............:

The political scientists tell us that man made CO2 produces global warming (or Climate Change™) whatever........but the Greenland ice melted away 150 years ago when there was a lot less man made CO2. Now, I'm not a scientist, but maybe we shouldn't blame man made CO2. Maybe something else causes the ice in Greenland to melt away on a regular basis..??? Wait...I know....George Bush, right?

[jon71]

Good article. I like the part.....

"Goddard glaciologist Lora Koenig said that similar melting events occur about every 150 years, and this event is consistent with that schedule, citing the previous 1889 melt."

Where did all the man made CO2 come from back in 1889???

Start with the title. We are looking at an UNPRECEDENTED level of ice melting. Instead of the normal level of 40% it's now 97%. You cannot blithely dismiss UNPRECEDENTED levels of melting.


Unprecedented melting of Greenland's ice sheet this month has stunned NASA scientists and has highlighted broader concerns that the region is losing a remarkable amount of ice overall.

According to a NASA press release, about half of Greenland's surface ice sheet naturally melts during an average summer. But the data from three independent satellites this July, analyzed by NASA and university scientists, showed that in less than a week, the amount of thawed ice sheet surface skyrocketed from 40 percent to 97 percent.

In over 30 years of observations, satellites have never measured this amount of melting, which reaches nearly all of Greenland's surface ice cover.

[Naturist Mark]

But Mark..........

There was less man made CO2 in 1889. Today we have more coal, agriculture and deforestation as well as huge evil industries belching gazillions of metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere and the same "event" happens today......??? Something does not compute.

Lets see............:

The political scientists tell us that man made CO2 produces global warming (or Climate Change™) whatever........but the Greenland ice melted away 150 years ago when there was a lot less man made CO2. Now, I'm not a scientist, but maybe we shouldn't blame man made CO2. Maybe something else causes the ice in Greenland to melt away on a regular basis..??? Wait...I know....George Bush, right?

Gloria Gloria Gloria. You are conflating a number of different things. The (approximately) 150 year cycle identified by Climate Scientists (not political scientists) is not due to anthropogenic global warming. This is affecting melting on the icecap throughout Greenland, and the scientists studying it are not claiming it was caused by by AGW, but they are saying that studying it will help them to improve their models to better understand what effect AGW has on Greenland. Quite separate from this interior surface melting is the accelerated breakup of Greenland glaciers - which is primarily due to warmer sea temperatures - very much a result of AGW.

When you asked what the sources of man made CO2 was in 1889 I gave an answer. You only assumed, or wished to give others the false impression that I was claiming that the previous Greenland surface melt was caused by anthropogenic CO2. Nope, I was simply answering your leading but irrelevant question. It was interesting to see where you would go with it.

Now just to anticipate you next thread of argument - if the Greenland surface melt is a natural cycle not dependent on AGW (although it IS likely that AGW may be affecting its severity), how can climate scientists be sure that all Climate Change is not just natural cycles? Answer: because we have studied those natural cycles for decades, and we know that our present climate is counter to those cycles. Remember those studies from the 70s and 80s that the media hyped as predicting Global Cooling? Those studies were about those natural cycles - and their cumulative effect showed that the natural climate cycle of the planet was entering a cooling period - ultimately leading into a new ice age. BUT. Those studies made it clear to people who read them carefully that they were about identifying the trends in natural cycles, and deliberately did not take into account anthropogenic effects and were not predictive of where climate was going in a world affected by human activity.

Short version - the best science studying natural climate cycles agree that the Earth should be cooling off, the fact that it is not is the strongest evidence that it is human activity that is changing the climate.

[Gloria]

Gloria Gloria Gloria. You are conflating a number of different things. The (approximately) 150 year cycle identified by Climate Scientists (not political scientists) is not due to anthropogenic global warming. This is affecting melting on the icecap throughout Greenland, and the scientists studying it are not claiming it was caused by by AGW, but they are saying that studying it will help them to improve their models to better understand what effect AGW has on Greenland. Quite separate from this interior surface melting is the accelerated breakup of Greenland glaciers - which is primarily due to warmer sea temperatures - very much a result of AGW.

I have to agree with you there. After reading the actual NASA Press Release, I find no mention of AGW. The release simply reports on melting ice witch is an effect of climate.
The release does mention a "Heat Dome" (?)

"This extreme melt event coincided with an unusually strong ridge of warm air, or a heat dome, over Greenland. The ridge was one of a series that has dominated Greenland's weather since the end of May. "Each successive ridge has been stronger than the previous one. This latest heat dome started to move over Greenland on July 8, and then parked itself over the ice sheet about three days later. By July 16, it had begun to dissipate."

I don't see a relationship between a "heat dome" and warmer sea temps. And I don't agree that warmer sea temps are "very much a result of AGW". The jury is still out on that one. And, I wonder what the sea temps were back in 1889.

When you asked what the sources of man made CO2 was in 1889 I gave an answer. You only assumed, or wished to give others the false impression that I was claiming that the previous Greenland surface melt was caused by anthropogenic CO2. Nope, I was simply answering your leading but irrelevant question. It was interesting to see where you would go with it.

You gave precisely the answer I expected. Thank you.
There was no intention of "false impressions". Everyone knows that anthropogenic CO2 was immeasurable in 1889.

Now just to anticipate you next thread of argument - if the Greenland surface melt is a natural cycle not dependent on AGW (although it IS likely that AGW may be affecting its severity), how can climate scientists be sure that all Climate Change is not just natural cycles? Answer: because we have studied those natural cycles for decades, and we know that our present climate is counter to those cycles. Remember those studies from the 70s and 80s that the media hyped as predicting Global Cooling? Those studies were about those natural cycles - and their cumulative effect showed that the natural climate cycle of the planet was entering a cooling period - ultimately leading into a new ice age. BUT. Those studies made it clear to people who read them carefully that they were about identifying the trends in natural cycles, and deliberately did not take into account anthropogenic effects and were not predictive of where climate was going in a world affected by human activity.

Last I heard the scientific community was poo-pooing the global cooling predictions of the 70's. They were "flawed". There was no satellite data available. The theory didn't "fit in" with the modern computer models. Now you are saying that they were right (?) and the earth should be cooling.

Mark, it's stuff like this that only strengthens my skepticism.

First it was the horrors of Global Warming. Then when things didn't warm up, it became Climate Change™. Now the scientists who were wrong in 1980 are right and the world should be cooling but man is causing it to warm up. Hey! all science aside I prefer warmer to cold. The idea of another Ice Age does not appeal to me at all. Perhaps man is driving the climate in the right direction. Maybe we should concentrate establishing the ideal world temperature and hold it right there.

Kidding aside. You mention an important point. "Remember those studies from the 70s and 80s that the media hyped as predicting Global Cooling?"

Media Hype.

I read the whole NASA Press Release that the Huffington/puffington Post article was based on and you can see how the media HYPES things.

In http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...land-melt.html there is no mention of "an UNPRECEDENTED level of ice melting". Or that "NASA scientists were "stunned". They were studying natural climate cycles that have been going on for eons. Of course those buzz words jump out at people who cannot be objective or are content to accept everything on TV as hard fact. They then become the "Chicken Little's" of our time. I blame the media.

Short version - the best science studying natural climate cycles agree that the Earth should be cooling off, the fact that it is not is the strongest evidence that it is human activity that is changing the climate.

Sorry Mark, I can't agree. Not when only a few years ago the best science studying natural climate cycles was telling us that the Earth has been warming since the Industrial Revolution.

[jon71]

Yet another sign of the times. The heat is so extreme it is causing roads to warp and buckle and even train rails can warp. It's unfathomable that anyone can look at this and not realize that something very unusual is happening.


http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/06/travel...iref=allsearch