Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

Just Temperature

Posted by: Dr. Ricky Rood, 3:19 PM GMT on March 25, 2012

+15

Just Temperature:

The U.S. has just experienced an intense heat event with many records falling in the eastern half of the U.S. Here is Chris Burt’s post on the historic event. There is an excellent discussion of this event and its relation to a warming climate by Andrew Freedman at Climate Central. (Global Warming May Have Fueled March Heat Odds) I have a talk to give next week, and I am sure that the heat will contribute to questions. A question that has been put to me frequently in the past weeks is that should we expect such high temperatures in the future?

Usually when I talk about evidence of a warming, I talk about coherent and convergent evidence. That is, one can’t just look at the global surface temperature data and state that the planet has warmed. But if you look at the surface temperature data along with many other sources of data, then one finds that the evidence of warming is overwhelming. If you add the impacts of this warming to ecosystems, for example, the observations that spring is coming earlier over most of the land area in the Northern Hemisphere, then the evidence becomes smothering. For me and many others this evidence of warming is convincing, but it relies on pulling together information from many sources, explaining their relationships, and presentation of the information. So as people have asked me about the heat in Michigan and Maine this past week, I have thought of what I could do with just temperature. Here is the thread that I put together.

The last month when the global mean monthly average was below the 20th century average was February 1985. Here is a picture of the difference from the 100 year average of temperature data from each February. It has been 324 months since there was a month below the global average temperature. (Not 324 Februarys, 324 consecutive months.) Looking at the graph, the Southern Hemisphere, which is dominated by the ocean, goes back into the 1970s. There have been Februarys in the Northern Hemisphere with little blips below average.

Figure 1: February monthly difference from a 20th century average of all Februarys. From the National Climatic Data Center.

The average in this figure is based on the entire 20th century. Therefore, if you look at the record during the 20th century, there is a balance between the warm and the cold months. This fact comes directly from the definition of calculating the differences from an average. There is a famous 1930s warm period. This warm period is present in the February time series, but compared with a later span centered around 1960, this period in not as intense. A prominent characteristic of the graph is that on the left, in the first part of the 20th century, it is cooler than the average and on the right, the here and now, it is warmer.

To go along with the February graph, I have placed the graph from August 2011. The main part of the story, that in 1900 it was cooler than in 2000 remains the same. Here, in the Northern Hemisphere summer, the 1930s warm period is more prominent and more global than in February. In is easy to conclude from this figure that the spatial extent and the temporal persistent of the current warming are both far larger than in the spurt of warmth of the 1930s.

Figure 2: August monthly difference from a 20th century average of all Augusts. From the National Climatic Data Center.

I started this article with the question is the current heat event in the U.S. what we can expect in the future? Taking this simple argument, looking at the average for the past, almost 30 years, it seems reasonable to expect it be warm. And given, the relentless increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we should expect it to be warmer in the future. To expect otherwise would be betting against the average.

Betting against the average – the next plot, Figure 3, is adapted from a 2009 paper by Jerry Meehl and a host of other authors. (Original Paper, Paper Discussion from NCAR ) What this figure shows, for the U.S., is the number of new record highs divided by the number of record lows – the ratio of highs to lows. In a simplistic, intuitive way, if the average temperature where staying the same, then one would expect the number of new record highs and the number of new record lows to be about the same. What is seen in the figure is as we go from the 1980s to the 1990s to the 2000s, there is trend of record highs out numbering record lows by a factor of 2 to 1. Comparing this with Figures 1 and 2, this evolution of new record highs outpacing new record lows occurs during the time when there has not been a month below the global 20th century average.

Figure 3: Adapted from Meehl et al. (2009) the ratio of U.S. record highs and record lows by decade.

The next figure I show is another version of the global difference figure. This one is calculated as differences from 1950 onwards in order to overlap with the data from the Climate Prediction Center that identify El Nino and La Nina Cycles. El Nino and La Nina are names given to frequently occurring patterns of variation that are concentrated in the tropical Pacific Ocean, but that change the average temperature of Earth for about a year. When there is an El Nino then the globe is warmer and when there is a La Nina the globe is cooler.

Figure 4: Global temperature differences with El Nino (warm) and La Nina (cool) years marked. From National Climatic Data Center.

Looking first at the La Nina years, 1985, the last year when the Earth was cooler that the 20th century average was a La Nina year. One could say that this was the last year when the variation associated with La Nina was strong enough to counter the warming trend enough for the Earth to appear “cool.” What is striking is that the La Nina years in the past three decades are systematically warming. This suggests that in the La Nina cool period, we are seeing a warmer and warmer background, average, temperature evolving.

The warm phase of this variation does not paint as easy a picture. The very strong 1997-1998 El Nino famously raised the Earth’s temperature to a point that many argue was the warmest year observed. The subsequent El Nino events are not as strong as the 1997-1998 El Nino, and each one has temperature maximum that flirts with the 1998 maximum. It is important to note that in 1998 the entire positive anomaly of temperature was not due to the presence of El Nino. The El Nino events take place on a background of increasing temperature, and each event is a burst towards new historic highs in temperature. It is useful to look back earlier in the graph, say 1970 and earlier, to get an idea of the size of variation that can be associated with El Nino and La Nina.

Returning again to the question posed in the beginning, can we expect to regularly see such warm temperatures going forward? Yes, it makes sense that we will see more and more record high temperatures. To not expect that is to bet against the emerging observed trend of warmer and warmer temperatures that is a metric of the warming climate.

I will finish this just temperature story with a map of the Plant Hardiness Zones. Here is the official version from the US Department of Agriculture with an service that lets you pick out your zip code. I show a map of Michigan. In 1990 the green zones, 6, were down around the Ohio River in southern Ohio. This is a measure of not only warming, but also of the definitive changes in the onset of spring. The Washington Post has an excellent graphic that shows the changes between 1990 and 2012.

Figure 5: Plant hardiness zones in Michigan for 2012. From US Department of Agriculture.

We have just experienced in the U.S. a record extreme heat event. This raises the natural questions of climate, weather, and climate change. I have linked a couple of excellent discussions of these issues in the opening paragraph. What I have done in my article is to focus simply on temperature. I have laid out a thread that starts from the globe and the remarkable observation that we have not seen a month below the 20th century global average in more than 25 years. This I followed with the observation that we are in a time when we are setting more than twice as many record highs as record lows. After that I discussed the role of one of the most prominent forms of planetary temperature variations, El Nino and La Nina. The compelling point from this graph was that in the past 30 years during the cool phase, La Nina, the planet shows a warming trend. Finally, I introduce the plant hardiness zones, which show warmer winters, and can be translated to earlier springs. So the question that has been posed to me last week, can we expect such high temperatures in the future? Yes. If we use our experience and observations for the basis of decision making, then the rational answer is yes. We will see more records. We will see an earlier spring. We will see warmer times.

r

Categories: Climate Change Climate Change News

Permalink | A A A

Top of Page

Reader Comments

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200

Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 51 - 101

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 — Blog Index

51. Birthmark 5:24 PM GMT on March 27, 2012
Quoting iceagecoming: Here are a few that agree with Paul Hudson; I suppose they don't count either: “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever. “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.” Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist. “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet. “So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member. “Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth. “The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ. “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review. “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher. “I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” - Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences. “Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden. “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee. Thank for posting this rather long list of people who are wrong. It was most entertaining to see the number of ways that presumably intelligent people can be wrong. As for your "facts", I'll say this. A mediocre man once said, "Irrelevant facts are...well, irrelevant." That mediocre man was me. (I said a lot of other stuff, too. But we'll get to that later.) :) Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1439

52. Birthmark 5:25 PM GMT on March 27, 2012
Quoting TemplesOfSyrinxC4: That's a good one, they should add a picture of puppetmaster Warren Buffett's BNSF railroad running under the incomplete Keystone XL pipeline headed to the ports with the oil to be shipped to China. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/obama-puppetmaster- warren-buffett-biggest-winner-keystone-pipeline-re jection Buffett is now Obama's puppet-master? What, has Soros got the day off...again? Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1439

53. iceagecoming 9:19 PM GMT on March 27, 2012
On The Hijacking of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) by Bill Gray Professor Emeritus Colorado State University (AMS Fellow, Charney Award recipient, and over 50-year member) June 2011 Obtaining a Balanced View on AGW. To understand what is really occurring with regards to the AGW question one must now bypass the AMS, the mainstream media, and the mainline scientific journals. They have mostly been preconditioned to accept the AGW hypothesis and, in general, frown on anyone not agreeing that AGW is, next to nuclear war, our society’s most serious long range problem. To obtain any kind of a balanced back-and-forth discussion on AGW one has to consult the many web blogs that are both advocates and skeptics of AGW. These blogs are the only source for real open debate on the validity of the AGW hypothesis. Here is where the real science of the AGW question is taking place. Over the last few years the weight of evidence, as presented in these many blog discussions, is beginning to swing against the AGW hypothesis. As the globe fails to warm as the GCMs have predicted the American public is gradually losing its belief in the prior claims of Gore, Hansen, and the other many AGW advocates. I had hoped some here had the interest of discovery and exchange of ideas as the vanguard to climate science, but sad to say it is mostly sound bites. "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." Carl Sagan Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 21 Comments: 852

54. Neapolitan 9:44 PM GMT on March 27, 2012
Quoting iceagecoming: On The Hijacking of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) by Bill Gray Professor Emeritus Colorado State University (AMS Fellow, Charney Award recipient, and over 50-year member) June 2011 Obtaining a Balanced View on AGW. To understand what is really occurring with regards to the AGW question one must now bypass the AMS, the mainstream media, and the mainline scientific journals. They have mostly been preconditioned to accept the AGW hypothesis and, in general, frown on anyone not agreeing that AGW is, next to nuclear war, our society%u2019s most serious long range problem. To obtain any kind of a balanced back-and-forth discussion on AGW one has to consult the many web blogs that are both advocates and skeptics of AGW. These blogs are the only source for real open debate on the validity of the AGW hypothesis. Here is where the real science of the AGW question is taking place. Over the last few years the weight of evidence, as presented in these many blog discussions, is beginning to swing against the AGW hypothesis. As the globe fails to warm as the GCMs have predicted the American public is gradually losing its belief in the prior claims of Gore, Hansen, and the other many AGW advocates. I had hoped some here had the interest of discovery and exchange of ideas as the vanguard to climate science, but sad to say it is mostly sound bites. "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." Carl Sagan A) For a guy who is so smart about tropical weather, Gray sure does bring on the stupid when it comes to AGW. He's deluded himself into believing that blog comment sections are where the real science is taking place, while actual scientists are all in on the Big Scam? Poor fella... B) It's a bit disingenuous to use a Carl Sagan quote to corroborate a denialist perspective, as the man was a firm supporter of AGWT as it was known at the time of his death. Just saying... Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11166

55. Birthmark 11:17 PM GMT on March 27, 2012
Dr. Gray, Please be advised that science is not decided by debate. (SEE: Evolution) You might want to incorporate this (apparently new to you) knowledge into your thinking skill set. Yer pal, Birthmark Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1439

56. Xandra 1:33 PM GMT on March 28, 2012
Climate change accelerated in 2001-2010: WMO "The global temperature increase rate has been "remarkable" during the previous four decades, according to the preliminary summary. The global temperature has increased since 1971 at an average estimated rate of 0.166C per decade compared to the average rate of 0.06C per decade computed over the full period 1881-2010." NOAA: 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record NASA Research Finds 2010 Tied for Warmest Year on Record Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 758

57. Xandra 9:37 PM GMT on March 28, 2012
From New Scientist: Arctic sea ice may have passed crucial tipping point THE disappearance of Arctic sea ice has crossed a "tipping point" that could soon make ice-free summers a regular feature across most of the Arctic Ocean, says a British climate scientist who is setting up an early warning system for dangerous climate tipping points. Tim Lenton at the University of Exeter has carried out a day-by-day assessment of Arctic ice-cover data collected since satellite observation began in 1979. He presented his hotly anticipated findings for the first time at the Planet Under Pressure conference in London on Monday. Up until 2007, sea ice systematically fluctuated between extensive cover in winter and lower cover in summer. But since then, says Lenton, the difference between winter and summer ice cover has been a million square kilometres greater than it was before, as a result of unprecedented summer melting. These observations are in stark contrast to what models predict should have happened. Despite fears of runaway sea-ice loss after summer cover hit a record low in 2007 - opening the Northwest Passage for the first time in living memory - modelling studies based on our best understanding of ice dynamics indicated the ice cover should fully recover each winter. "They suggest that even if the ice declined a large amount in one year, it should bounce back," says Walt Meier of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado. Instead, Lenton's research shows a permanent alteration. According to data from the past five years, the Arctic sea ice has not recovered from the 2007 extreme low. "The system has passed a tipping point," Lenton says. What caused the change is still unclear. Lenton speculates that the exceptional low in 2007 (pictured above) might have allowed the ocean to absorb so much heat that a lot of the thicker multiyear ice, which used to persist through the summer, was melted. Alternatively, the loss of ice may have changed air circulation patterns above the Arctic in ways that have similarly "locked in" the change. Other glaciologists would not comment before seeing the details of the analysis, which have yet to be published in a journal. But if the findings are confirmed, they say, the existing models will have to be rewritten. Elsewhere at the conference, Euan Nisbet of Royal Holloway, University of London, offered one particularly scary consequence of Arctic warming. He warned on Tuesday that warming ocean currents east of Greenland were melting ice in the seabed. This could trigger landslides on steep submarine slopes in the area, unleashing tsunamis capable of hitting the UK, and releasing buried methane that could amplify global warming. Something similar happened off Norway 8000 years ago in a similar geological setting, Nisbet told New Scientist. Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 758

58. BaltimoreBrian 2:42 AM GMT on March 29, 2012
PBS has a new topic on NewsHour Coping with Climate Change. Have any of you seen this? And what do you think of the segments? Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 25 Comments: 3361

59. Some1Has2BtheRookie 4:50 AM GMT on March 29, 2012
Quoting BaltimoreBrian: PBS has a new topic on NewsHour Coping with Climate Change. Have any of you seen this? And what do you think of the segments? I have not seen this yet. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. This is where we are now. Learn how to cope, if we can. Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4105

60. percylives 11:20 AM GMT on March 29, 2012
New IPCC report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation released on 3/28/12. It can be downloaded from a link here. Member Since: August 23, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 69

61. NeapolitanFan 12:48 PM GMT on March 29, 2012
Where's the warming? Link Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303

62. Neapolitan 12:55 PM GMT on March 29, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan: Where's the warming? Link Pretty much everywhere you look...so long as you remove those thick ideological blinders. Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11166

63. Xandra 2:15 PM GMT on March 29, 2012
Syracuse University scientist seeks to set the record straight on climate research - Recent media reports misrepresent his research Article by: Judy Holmes Recently published climate research by Zunli Lu, a geochemist in the Department of Earth Sciences in Syracuse University’s College of Arts and Sciences, has gone viral across the Internet by bloggers. A number of media outlets, including the Daily Mail and The Register, which are published in the United Kingdom, claim this research supports arguments that human-induced global warming is a myth. The claims, Lu says, misrepresent his work and the conclusions in the study. The statement below is an effort to set the record straight. The original news story about the research is posted on Arts and Sciences News. Zunli Lu: "It is unfortunate that my research, "An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula," recently published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, has been misrepresented by a number of media outlets. Several of these media articles assert that our study claims the entire Earth heated up during medieval times without human CO2 emissions. We clearly state in our paper that we studied one site at the Antarctic Peninsula. The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe. Other statements, such as the study "throws doubt on orthodoxies around global warming," completely misrepresent our conclusions. Our study does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend." Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 758

64. Birthmark 2:29 PM GMT on March 29, 2012
Quoting BaltimoreBrian: PBS has a new topic on NewsHour Coping with Climate Change. Have any of you seen this? And what do you think of the segments? Haven't seen it. But then, I don't really watch TV very often. Quoting percylives: New IPCC report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation released on 3/28/12. Thanks for that, percy. Bookmarked for later consumption. Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1439

65. Birthmark 2:37 PM GMT on March 29, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan: Where's the warming? Link I found it! Please don't hesitate to let me know the moment these start going down. Thanks in advance. Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1439

66. Birthmark 2:43 PM GMT on March 29, 2012
Quoting Xandra: Syracuse University scientist seeks to set the record straight on climate research - Recent media reports misrepresent his research Article by: Judy Holmes Recently published climate research by Zunli Lu, a geochemist in the Department of Earth Sciences in Syracuse University’s College of Arts and Sciences, has gone viral across the Internet by bloggers. A number of media outlets, including the Daily Mail and The Register, which are published in the United Kingdom, claim this research supports arguments that human-induced global warming is a myth. The claims, Lu says, misrepresent his work and the conclusions in the study. The statement below is an effort to set the record straight. The original news story about the research is posted on Arts and Sciences News. Zunli Lu: "It is unfortunate that my research, "An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula," recently published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, has been misrepresented by a number of media outlets. Several of these media articles assert that our study claims the entire Earth heated up during medieval times without human CO2 emissions. We clearly state in our paper that we studied one site at the Antarctic Peninsula. The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe. Other statements, such as the study "throws doubt on orthodoxies around global warming," completely misrepresent our conclusions. Our study does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend." Yeah, the denialists will do that. Sometimes I think that they live for the opportunity to misrepresent science. Meh, I guess it keeps 'em off the streets. Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1439

67. Some1Has2BtheRookie 3:03 PM GMT on March 29, 2012
Quoting Birthmark: Yeah, the denialists will do that. Sometimes I think that they live for the opportunity to misrepresent science. Meh, I guess it keeps 'em off the streets. I am not so certain that this would be the case. There is ample evidence that they keep throwing themselves under the bus. ;-) Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4105

68. Birthmark 4:00 PM GMT on March 29, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie: I am not so certain that this would be the case. There is ample evidence that they keep throwing themselves under the bus. ;-) If we could somehow train them to do that over potholes, then I think everybody wins! Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1439

69. overwash12 4:18 PM GMT on March 29, 2012
Quoting Birthmark: If we could somehow train them to do that over potholes, then I think everybody wins! Somehow or another ,I don't think AGW will be our biggest problem! Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1049

70. percylives 4:53 PM GMT on March 29, 2012
Quoting overwash12: Somehow or another ,I don't think AGW will be our biggest problem! Enlighten me. What gets your vote? I'm very interested in whatever it is that could beat several meters of sea level rise with many trillions of dollars of infrastructure lost (not to even mention the millions of folks who will lose most or all of their real estate wealth and their places of residence and support), vast new areas suffering from desertification, mass starvation, mass migration, and the resulting warfare. And, yes, I realize I've only scratched the surface of the many nasties sneaking up on us because of climate change. Unless you have info on an incoming asteroid of considerable size, surprise me. What gets your vote? Member Since: August 23, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 69

71. nymore 5:41 PM GMT on March 29, 2012
I see the arctic sea ice is in no hurry to leave but why should it temps in the northern part of Canada and Alaska have been running slightly cooler than normal to over 20 degrees below normal for a while now. Amazingly no mention here. Wonder why, that's right we only blog temps when they are above normal to prove our bias. I will check other arctic places when I have time. Sources NWS and Environment Canada (Canada Met) Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2048

72. nymore 5:48 PM GMT on March 29, 2012
Iceland Met sees no significant warming since 1925. "Icelandic Meteorological office Navigation. Past temperature conditions in Iceland from 1798 to 2007 Temperature in Stykkish%uFFFDlmur (Western Iceland) The temperature (figure 1) has in the long run been increasing during the last 200 years at the rate of 0.7%uFFFDC per century. This is similar to the general temperature increase in the whole Northern hemisphere during the same period. The warming has been very uneven, dominated by three cold periods and two warm ones. Annual temperature in Stykkish%uFFFDlmur 1798 to 2007 Stykkish%uFFFDlmshiti Figure 1. Annual temperature in Stykkish%uFFFDlmur 1798 to 2007. Note that the values prior to 1845 are interpolated from observations at other stations. The confidence is very low for the years before 1830 and the values are preliminary and should not be referenced. Work on quality improvement is ongoing. A few warm and cold years are highlighted. The time from 1925 onwards is dominated by a very large cycle that does not show an overall significant warming, although the temperature rise of the last 20 years is considerable. There is also a large decedal variability before 1925. The year 1892 marked the end of a period dominated by a very large year-to-year variability and the end of a long run of very cold years. There was a relatively warm period during 1837 to 1858, and by overlooking the very cold year of 1835 and a few isolated cold months one can identify the interval 1813 to 1858 as a generally warm one. The years 1807 to 1812 were very cold. Although the following warm period was considerably colder than the corresponding 20th century warm period it was noted as a generally favourable time for agriculture and the population of the country increased markedly. The 20th century warm period that started in the 1920s ended very abruptly in 1965. It can be divided into three sub-periods, a very warm one to 1942, a colder interval during 1943 to 1952, but it was decisively warm during 1953 to 1964. The cold period 1965 to 1995 also included a few sub-periods. The so called "sea ice years" 1965 to 1971, a slighly warmer period 1972 til 1978, a very cold interval during 1979 to 1986, but therafter it became gradually warmer, the last cold year in the sequence being 1995. Since then it has been warm, the warmth culminating in 2002 to 2003. Generally the decription above refers to the whole country, but there are slightly diverging details, depending on the source of the cold air. Back to top"> Here is the graph (fig 1) How would NOAA and NASA find significant warming when Iceland Met does not. Have a nice day everyone. Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2048

73. Birthmark 7:41 PM GMT on March 29, 2012
Quoting overwash12: Somehow or another ,I don't think AGW will be our biggest problem! Over what time frame? Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1439

74. Birthmark 7:45 PM GMT on March 29, 2012
Quoting nymore: I see the arctic sea ice is in no hurry to leave but why should it temps in the northern part of Canada and Alaska have been running slightly cooler than normal to over 20 degrees below normal for a while now. Amazingly no mention here. Wonder why, that's right we only blog temps when they are above normal to prove our bias. I will check other arctic places when I have time. Sources NWS and Environment Canada (Canada Met) Yep. Even with AGW, water still freezes when it gets too cold. Talk to me in late August and early September. ;) Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1439

75. Birthmark 7:50 PM GMT on March 29, 2012
Quoting nymore: Any reason the material on Stykkishólmur isn't linked? Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1439

76. Xandra 8:47 PM GMT on March 29, 2012
Quoting nymore: Iceland Met sees no significant warming since 1925. "The temperature (figure 1) has in the long run been increasing during the last 200 years at the rate of +0.7C per century. This is similar to the general temperature increase in the whole Northern hemisphere during the same period." "The time from 1925 onwards is dominated by a very large cycle that does not show an overall significant warming, although the temperature rise of the last 20 years is considerable." Look at the red trend line. Does it look like "no significant warming since 1925"? What I can see, the trend is upward. And there is no information about the years 2008-2011. Figure 1. Annual temperature in Stykkishólmur 1798 to 2007. Note that the values prior to 1845 are interpolated from observations at other stations. The confidence is very low for the years before 1830 and the values are preliminary and should not be referenced. Work on quality improvement is ongoing. A few warm and cold years are highlighted. Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 758

77. Xandra 9:02 PM GMT on March 29, 2012
Quoting nymore: Have a nice day everyone. Have a nice day you too. Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 758

78. iceagecoming 9:21 PM GMT on March 29, 2012
Quoting Xandra: From New Scientist: Arctic sea ice may have passed crucial tipping point THE disappearance of Arctic sea ice has crossed a "tipping point" that could soon make ice-free summers a regular feature across most of the Arctic Ocean, says a British climate scientist who is setting up an early warning system for dangerous climate tipping points. Tim Lenton at the University of Exeter has carried out a day-by-day assessment of Arctic ice-cover data collected since satellite observation began in 1979. He presented his hotly anticipated findings for the first time at the Planet Under Pressure conference in London on Monday. Up until 2007, sea ice systematically fluctuated between extensive cover in winter and lower cover in summer. But since then, says Lenton, the difference between winter and summer ice cover has been a million square kilometres greater than it was before, as a result of unprecedented summer melting. These observations are in stark contrast to what models predict should have happened. Despite fears of runaway sea-ice loss after summer cover hit a record low in 2007 - opening the Northwest Passage for the first time in living memory - modelling studies based on our best understanding of ice dynamics indicated the ice cover should fully recover each winter. "They suggest that even if the ice declined a large amount in one year, it should bounce back," says Walt Meier of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado. Instead, Lenton's research shows a permanent alteration. According to data from the past five years, the Arctic sea ice has not recovered from the 2007 extreme low. "The system has passed a tipping point," Lenton says. What caused the change is still unclear. Lenton speculates that the exceptional low in 2007 (pictured above) might have allowed the ocean to absorb so much heat that a lot of the thicker multiyear ice, which used to persist through the summer, was melted. Alternatively, the loss of ice may have changed air circulation patterns above the Arctic in ways that have similarly "locked in" the change. Other glaciologists would not comment before seeing the details of the analysis, which have yet to be published in a journal. But if the findings are confirmed, they say, the existing models will have to be rewritten. Elsewhere at the conference, Euan Nisbet of Royal Holloway, University of London, offered one particularly scary consequence of Arctic warming. He warned on Tuesday that warming ocean currents east of Greenland were melting ice in the seabed. This could trigger landslides on steep submarine slopes in the area, unleashing tsunamis capable of hitting the UK, and releasing buried methane that could amplify global warming. Something similar happened off Norway 8000 years ago in a similar geological setting, Nisbet told New Scientist. Last ice age recovery caused by AGW. The modern human species of Homo sapien has existed on the earth for only 100,000 years. http://facts.randomhistory.com/ I think you warmist's are onto something! Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 21 Comments: 852

79. iceagecoming 9:31 PM GMT on March 29, 2012
Quoting nymore: I see the arctic sea ice is in no hurry to leave but why should it temps in the northern part of Canada and Alaska have been running slightly cooler than normal to over 20 degrees below normal for a while now. Amazingly no mention here. Wonder why, that's right we only blog temps when they are above normal to prove our bias. I will check other arctic places when I have time. Sources NWS and Environment Canada (Canada Met) And the Antarctic Ice has been steadily increasing, but it is always hot somewhere, and that is all you'll ever hear, because in the end, the only way they can pull off the biggest ponzi scheme ever is thru propaganda. Good COP: Hillary breathes new life into a global deal that the Chinese had been saying can’t be done And today I’d like to announce that, in the context of a strong accord in which all major economies stand behind meaningful mitigation actions and provide full transparency as to their implementation, the United States is prepared to work with other countries toward a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the climate change needs of developing countries. Link Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 21 Comments: 852

80. Pipejazz 10:28 PM GMT on March 29, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie: I do not envision that there will be anything to drive temperatures back down, in the short term. This is unless there are other major events that come into play such as an eruption of a super volcano or something else that would put a lot of sun blocking particulates into the atmosphere. These particulates would only remain in the atmosphere, depending on the event(s), for a short period of time and then the warming trend would continue. A shift in the Earth's tilt or a variation in our orbit around the Sun could also come into play. I have no reason to suspect that these are upcoming, near term events. I can not wager an opinion of what Earth's climate will be like in another 1,000 years. My opinion of what Earth's climate will be like in 100 years is a continued warming from what we see today. See Carl Sagan's "Nuclear Winter" articles for a "chilling" (pun intended) scenario that could be precipitated (another pun?) by the fight for the last of the petrochemicals. Member Since: September 2, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 74

81. Some1Has2BtheRookie 12:10 AM GMT on March 30, 2012
Quoting Pipejazz: See Carl Sagan's "Nuclear Winter" articles for a "chilling" (pun intended) scenario that could be precipitated (another pun?) by the fight for the last of the petrochemicals. I have seen it. I am a fan of the late Dr. Carl Sagan. His work is what got me interested in Science. One can only wonder about what he would have to say about all of the events unfolding before us now. I feel reasonably certain that he would be planning his one way trip to Mars. My favorite books by him are, "Cosmos" and "The Demon Haunted Wold: Science as a Candle in the Dark". I wish that more people would read the latter. Instead, the Salem Witch Hunts seem to persist even today and Earth is still a flat planet that everything else in the Universe revolves around. sigh Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4105

82. nymore 12:54 AM GMT on March 30, 2012
Quoting Xandra: Look at the red trend line. Does it look like "no significant warming since 1925"? What I can see, the trend is upward. And there is no information about the years 2008-2011. The trend line starts in 1798 and goes till 2008, in which case it should go upward. Now if the trend line starts in 1925 and goes till 2008 you would see no significant change. If you think Iceland Met is lying or you do not understand something e-mail them and ask, this is what I did for some NOAA info for which I am still waiting for an answer after over 2 weeks. Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2048

83. Birthmark 3:10 AM GMT on March 30, 2012
Quoting nymore: The trend line starts in 1798 and goes till 2008, in which case it should go upward. Now if the trend line starts in 1925 and goes till 2008 you would see no significant change. Fail. Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1439

84. Neapolitan 10:06 AM GMT on March 30, 2012
Quoting Birthmark: Fail. Oh, but, see, you're missing two key points: 1) If you begin on a relatively warm year and end on a relatively cool year, the trendline is flat, or even negative. Therefore, the planet is clearly cooling; 2) The climate in Stykkishólmur, Iceland, is clearly representative of the climate for the planet as a whole. I love it when denialists use data they believe bolsters their side when it actually does the opposite. For instance, Bastardi (yes, him again) on Twitter a short while ago wrote: "By the way, anyone look at this... the actual data as to how little humans contribute to the co2 total http://firsthandweather.com/wp-content/uploads/20 11/12/greenhouse.png DOE report" ...which linked to this chart: The part that Little Joey failed to notice is that for the decade of the 1990s, natural sources of CO2 were being naturally absorbed, but only about half of human-made CO2 was, leading to an average annual build-up of 11.7 billion metric tons. That is, obviously, close to 120 billion metric tons for the decade (and it's gone way up since then). In DenialWorld, 120 billion metric tons of CO2 may seem like only a "little", but it's a whole heck of a lot where warming is concerned. Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11166

85. nymore 12:55 PM GMT on March 30, 2012
I see I have ruffled a few feathers with the info from Iceland. I just asked why some folks would adjust the temps for Iceland. When asked to back it up, some on here jumped in with info from a denialist site. I went to Iceland Met and got the info, since I don't use bias sites from either side like some here. Some on here have tried to slam the info. If you have a problem with it, bring it up with Iceland Met. If the info given from them doesn't agree with your point of view, you cherry pick at it or basically deny it. Funny how the denialist shoe fits on the other foot isn't it. BTW the warming back then was clearly caused by CO2, remember the only trend lines that matter are the ones that start with a year that is colder than the year you want to stop at. They also say the temp info represents their country as a whole. Have a good day everyone. Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2048

86. Birthmark 2:47 PM GMT on March 30, 2012
Quoting nymore: I see I have ruffled a few feathers with the info from Iceland. Nah, no ruffled feathers. You have posted nested cherry picks...and failed to provide any context. First, you chose one data station in Iceland. Second, within the data years have been cherry picked for comparison with no explanation given as to why those dates were picked --other than "cycles" of some undefined sort. Third, how any of this ties into *Global* Warming isn't addressed. So your entire post becomes a non-sequitur. Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1439

87. Birthmark 2:50 PM GMT on March 30, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan: For instance, Bastardi (yes, him again) on Twitter a short while ago wrote: Yes, Brother Bastardi does seem to have the odd spot of difficulty with reading and/or interpreting tables and charts. Did you see his Julian Day gaffe over on Masters' blog the other day? Priceless! Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1439

88. Patrap 3:17 PM GMT on March 30, 2012
The most visible change in the Arctic region in recent years has been the rapid decline of the perennial ice cover. The perennial ice is the portion of the sea ice floating on the surface of the ocean that survives the summer. This ice that spans multiple years represents the thickest component of the sea ice cover. This visualization shows the perennial Arctic sea ice from 1980 to 2012. The grey disk at the North Pole indicates the region where no satellite data is collected. Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 372 Comments: 111613

89. Some1Has2BtheRookie 3:56 PM GMT on March 30, 2012
Quoting nymore: I see I have ruffled a few feathers with the info from Iceland. I just asked why some folks would adjust the temps for Iceland. When asked to back it up, some on here jumped in with info from a denialist site. I went to Iceland Met and got the info, since I don't use bias sites from either side like some here. Some on here have tried to slam the info. If you have a problem with it, bring it up with Iceland Met. If the info given from them doesn't agree with your point of view, you cherry pick at it or basically deny it. Funny how the denialist shoe fits on the other foot isn't it. BTW the warming back then was clearly caused by CO2, remember the only trend lines that matter are the ones that start with a year that is colder than the year you want to stop at. They also say the temp info represents their country as a whole. Have a good day everyone. How have you been doing, nymore? Good to see you back. I read your post #72. "I just asked why some folks would adjust the temps for Iceland." What is said, in post #72, does not even mention an adjustment for the temps in Iceland by anyone. I also did not read anything in your posts prior to this that makes any such claim that a temp adjustment had been made. One of the things that was said, in post #72, is that there was a degree of uncertainty about the temp records during different time periods and that some of the temp readings were interpolated from nearby stations. Perhaps any temp adjustments that may have been made would come from a better way of determining the temps during these times. This is only me speculating since I have not seen any evidence that any adjustments had been made at all. Even if temp adjustments had been made you would need to see the justification of those that adjusted the temp data to answer your question. What I see, from your post #72, is a trend line that shows an overall warming. There have been times when there was a warming or cooling period, but the trend line still shows an overall warming. Also the article claims that since 1986 there has been a warming and with the last cold year of the cycle being in 1995. 1995 was still below the overall trend line, but there has been a sharper increase in the warming since 1986 than at any other time frame shown in the graph. We have heard it many times, nymore, "Well, that is just regional.". Iceland is regional as well. You need to look at the data from all regions and see what the overall trends are before you can assess any global changes. Is it wetter, colder, drier, hotter for regions across the globe. Should this be the case, then how far from the norm for these regions is being observed? Now you can get a global picture of what is happening with the climate. Then you need to ask yourself other questions. Will the anomalies we are witnessing now become the norms of the future? Will the frequency of these anomalies become closer together or further apart and will they become more severe or less severe? In which direction is it changing? What do the regional trends across the planet show? The answers to these questions would be an indication of what direction the global climate is changing, even if it is towards a stability. What do the global trends show you, nymore? Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4105

90. Patrap 3:57 PM GMT on March 30, 2012
Uploaded by JeffId1 on Jan 17, 2012 Satellite sea ice for Arctic and Antarctic. The pixel resolution is 25km and the satellite ice data comes from the NSIDC Sea Ice Concentrations as collected from the Nimbus-7 SMMR and DMSP SSM/I Passive Microwave systems. The compilation represents almost 3 GB of gridded data. Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 372 Comments: 111613

91. nymore 4:22 PM GMT on March 30, 2012
Quoting Birthmark: Nah, no ruffled feathers. You have posted nested cherry picks...and failed to provide any context. First, you chose one data station in Iceland. Second, within the data years have been cherry picked for comparison with no explanation given as to why those dates were picked --other than "cycles" of some undefined sort. Third, how any of this ties into *Global* Warming isn't addressed. So your entire post becomes a non-sequitur. I did not cherry pick anything Iceland Met did according to you. If any dates were picked it was by them. I questioned a couple weeks ago why NASA and NOAA would adjust temps that had already been adjusted. I never said anything about AGWT, you did. No bias websites were used only info from Iceland Met unless you feel they have an agenda now too. Go read the article for yourself even though I already posted it and Xandra found it quite easily. Need help finding it here is a hint ICELAND MET. Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2048

92. nymore 4:32 PM GMT on March 30, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie: How have you been doing, nymore? Good to see you back. I read your post #72. "I just asked why some folks would adjust the temps for Iceland." What is said, in post #72, does not even mention an adjustment for the temps in Iceland by anyone. I also did not read anything in your posts prior to this that makes any such claim that a temp adjustment had been made. One of the things that was said, in post #72, is that there was a degree of uncertainty about the temp records during different time periods and that some of the temp readings were interpolated from nearby stations. Perhaps any temp adjustments that may have been made would come from a better way of determining the temps during these times. This is only me speculating since I have not seen any evidence that any adjustments had been made at all. Even if temp adjustments had been made you would need to see the justification of those that adjusted the temp data to answer your question. What I see, from your post #72, is a trend line that shows an overall warming. There have been times when there was a warming or cooling period, but the trend line still shows an overall warming. Also the article claims that since 1986 there has been a warming and with the last cold year of the cycle being in 1995. 1995 was still below the overall trend line, but there has been a sharper increase in the warming since 1986 than at any other time frame shown in the graph. We have heard it many times, nymore, "Well, that is just regional.". Iceland is regional as well. You need to look at the data from all regions and see what the overall trends are before you can assess any global changes. Is it wetter, colder, drier, hotter for regions across the globe. Should this be the case, then how far from the norm for these regions is being observed? Now you can get a global picture of what is happening with the climate. Then you need to ask yourself other questions. Will the anomalies we are witnessing now become the norms of the future? Will the frequency of these anomalies become closer together or further apart and will they become more severe or less severe? In which direction is it changing? What do the regional trends across the planet show? The answers to these questions would be an indication of what direction the global climate is changing, even if it is towards a stability. What do the global trends show you, nymore? Hi Rookie nice to be back been busier than a cat with two behinds. I think you misunderstood my point read post 91. Temps lately for the globe seem to be flat or cooling from it highs according to every data set with a long enough history. Look at the trend lines from say the early 1900's to around 1940 then it cools now look at the trend lines from around the mid 70's to around the early 2000's they almost mirror each other in scale and length of time. Which makes a person like me question why. Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2048

93. Birthmark 4:45 PM GMT on March 30, 2012
Quoting nymore: I did not cherry pick anything Iceland Met did according to you. If any dates were picked it was by them. Here is what I said: "First, you chose one data station in Iceland." That is a correct statement. Iceland Met has many data stations, yet you picked only one. I went on to say, "Second, within the data years have been cherry picked for comparison with no explanation given as to why those dates were picked --other than "cycles" of some undefined sort." That is also a correct statement. I don't think you have any cause for complaint about my response to your post. Quoting nymore: I questioned a couple weeks ago why NASA and NOAA would adjust temps that had already been adjusted. I remember that...I think. (Don't have the best memory.) It was you who emailed them, wasn't it? If so, have they gotten back to you yet? Quoting nymore: I never said anything about AGWT, you did. No bias websites were used only info from Iceland Met unless you feel they have an agenda now too. I have no idea whether they have an agenda. It must be presumed that they don't, so there is no evidence I'm aware of that indicates that they have an agenda. That said, they may still be quoted out of context --accidentally or otherwise. Lack of context often gives a different impression than that intended by the person or organization being quoted. The reason I mentioned AGW is because the title of this blog is "Climate Change Blog," not "One Station in Iceland Blog." If you were simply pointing out that CC isn't uniform around the globe, then you have my apology. However, no one who has studied the subject of AGW-CC expected uniform changes at every point on the globe, so making such a point would be redundant. Quoting nymore: Go read the article for yourself even though I already posted it and Xandra found it quite easily. Need help finding it here is a hint ICELAND MET. I've already read it, thanks. But I think it's best to include a link if one is going to quote. Doing so facilitates communication in a discussion. Otherwise, someone wanting to read the source material is left digging through a website. Just googling "Iceland Met", btw, led me to something that caught my eye: "On 29 March 2012 the maximum temperature at the station Kv�sker in South-East Iceland, near the famed J�kuls�rl�n lagoon, soared to 20.5�C. The temperature has never before exceeded the 20 degree-mark in Iceland in March. The record was broken by an astounding 1,7 degree margin, the former record being 18.8 degrees, measured in Eskifj�r�ur in the Eastern Fjords on 28 March 2000. Many local maximum temperature records where also exceeded, amongst those at Teigarhorn in the Eastern Fjords where the maximum rose to 18.2 degrees. The daily recording of maximum temperature at Teigarhorn began in 1872 and the new record exceeded the old one (from 1968) by 2.2�C." Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1439

94. Birthmark 4:52 PM GMT on March 30, 2012
Quoting nymore: Hi Rookie nice to be back been busier than a cat with two behinds. I think you misunderstood my point read post 91. Temps lately for the globe seem to be flat or cooling from it highs according to every data set with a long enough history. Look at the trend lines from say the early 1900's to around 1940 then it cools now look at the trend lines from around the mid 70's to around the early 2000's they almost mirror each other in scale and length of time. Which makes a person like me question why. It shouldn't. The recent warming began at a higher temperature and has a steeper slope. It should also be noted that a good deal of the warming in the earlier warming was due to solar activity. That is impossible in the warming of the last four decades, as solar activity has been flat. That latter fact alone should make you think. Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1439

96. greentortuloni 5:20 PM GMT on March 30, 2012
Quoting TemplesOfSyrinxC4: Cities Expand To Area Equal to France, Germany a n d Spain Combined in less than 20 years ..................of the International GeosphereBiosphere Programme said, “A truly sustainable planet will require cities to think beyond city limits.” “Everything being brought into the city from outside: food, water, products and energy need to be sourced sustainably. We need to rethink the resource flow to cities.” Sounds like "The Caves of Steel". Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1189

97. Patrap 5:49 PM GMT on March 30, 2012
General Motors Decides Climate Change Is Real, Pulls Support From Heartland Institute After getting called out by an environmental group, General Motors has pulled support from the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based nonprofit well-known for attacking the science behind global warming and climate change. The automaker told the Heartland Institute last week that it won't be making further donations, spokesman Greg Martin said. At a speech earlier this month, GM CEO Dan Akerson said his company is running its business under the assumption that climate change is real. "We applaud GM's decision and the message it sends -- that it is no longer acceptable for corporations to promote the denial of climate change and that support for an organization like Heartland is not in line with GM's values," said Daniel Souweine, campaign director for Forecast the Facts, a group that urges meteorologists to talk more openly about climate change. Internal documents leaked in February showed that the General Motors Foundation -- which the automaker runs separately from its business -- donated to the institute $15,000 in 2010 and again in 2011, with another $15,00 expected to be gifted this year. Heartland, which identifies itself as a free-market think tank, has questioned the ideas on global warming through its newsletters, web site and associated scientists. Last year, the tagline for its annual conference on the subject was "Global Warming: Was It Ever Really a Crisis?" Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, said GM had been a Heartland supporter for 20 years. "We regret the loss of their support, particularly since it was prompted by false claims contained in a fake memo circulated by disgraced climate scientist Peter Gleick," he said in a statement. "We once again respectfully ask liberal advocacy groups such as Huffington Post, the Center for American Progress, 350.org and Greenpeace to stop attacking scientists who question the theory of man-made global warming and corporations and foundations that are willing to fund open debate on this important public policy issue." The Heartland Institute said the internal documents were stolen by someone posing as a member of the board, who asked for the material to be sent to a new email account. Since then, Peter Gleick, president and co-founder of the Pacific Institute, a climate research group, has confessed to the stunt, adding that he regrets his actions. The bulk of Heartland's funding comes from one anonymous donor, who has given the group $11 million since 2007. Nonprofit groups are not legally obligated to reveal their donors. Previously Heartland was transparent about its funding, even posting a list of contributors on its website, but removed it in 2004. "Critics who couldn't or wouldn't engage in fair debate over our ideas found the donor list a convenient place to find the names of unpopular companies or foundations, which they used in ad hominem attacks against us," institute representatives wrote after taking down the list. "After much deliberation and with some regret, we now keep confidential the identities of all our donors." GM was not the only automaker to fund the Heartland Institute: Ford and Chrysler also contributed to it in the past. Ford and Chrysler told The Huffington Post that they had stopped funding the organization over the past decade, but neither automaker had records detailing reasons for pulling that support. Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 372 Comments: 111613

98. Neapolitan 7:11 PM GMT on March 30, 2012
Here's a short, randomly-selected list of some of this week's climate change articles/editorials (note: don't look for these on the Fox News website, because you won't find them there). In no particular order: --By the year 2100, conservative estimates are that dealing just with sea level rise and its effects will cost around $2 trillion a year (in 2012 dollars). (And that's assuming no catastrophic events such as ice-sheet collapse or massive methane release.) --Has global warming brought an early summer to the US? --West Antarctic ice shelves are coming apart at the seams --Satellites Show Sea Level Rise is Here to Stay --Canadian scientists are being muzzled by a government beholden to fossil fuel interests. (Sound familiar?) --How to Fight Food Insecurity, Even in a Changing Climate --Hot, crowded, and running out of fuel: Earth of 2050 a scary place --How Global Warming Sharply Increases The Likelihood Of 'Outlandish' Heat Waves --Climate change is already harshing the weather --Special Report: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11166

99. NeapolitanFan 8:00 PM GMT on March 30, 2012
The laws of physics apply everywhere except, warmist climatologists would have you believe, in climate "science." Turns out the laws of physics apply there too. Link Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303

100. NeapolitanFan 8:01 PM GMT on March 30, 2012
Quoting Patrap: General Motors Decides Climate Change Is Real, Pulls Support From Heartland Institute After getting called out by an environmental group, General Motors has pulled support from the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based nonprofit well-known for attacking the science behind global warming and climate change. The automaker told the Heartland Institute last week that it won't be making further donations, spokesman Greg Martin said. At a speech earlier this month, GM CEO Dan Akerson said his company is running its business under the assumption that climate change is real. "We applaud GM's decision and the message it sends -- that it is no longer acceptable for corporations to promote the denial of climate change and that support for an organization like Heartland is not in line with GM's values," said Daniel Souweine, campaign director for Forecast the Facts, a group that urges meteorologists to talk more openly about climate change. Internal documents leaked in February showed that the General Motors Foundation -- which the automaker runs separately from its business -- donated to the institute $15,000 in 2010 and again in 2011, with another $15,00 expected to be gifted this year. Heartland, which identifies itself as a free-market think tank, has questioned the ideas on global warming through its newsletters, web site and associated scientists. Last year, the tagline for its annual conference on the subject was "Global Warming: Was It Ever Really a Crisis?" Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, said GM had been a Heartland supporter for 20 years. "We regret the loss of their support, particularly since it was prompted by false claims contained in a fake memo circulated by disgraced climate scientist Peter Gleick," he said in a statement. "We once again respectfully ask liberal advocacy groups such as Huffington Post, the Center for American Progress, 350.org and Greenpeace to stop attacking scientists who question the theory of man-made global warming and corporations and foundations that are willing to fund open debate on this important public policy issue." The Heartland Institute said the internal documents were stolen by someone posing as a member of the board, who asked for the material to be sent to a new email account. Since then, Peter Gleick, president and co-founder of the Pacific Institute, a climate research group, has confessed to the stunt, adding that he regrets his actions. The bulk of Heartland's funding comes from one anonymous donor, who has given the group $11 million since 2007. Nonprofit groups are not legally obligated to reveal their donors. Previously Heartland was transparent about its funding, even posting a list of contributors on its website, but removed it in 2004. "Critics who couldn't or wouldn't engage in fair debate over our ideas found the donor list a convenient place to find the names of unpopular companies or foundations, which they used in ad hominem attacks against us," institute representatives wrote after taking down the list. "After much deliberation and with some regret, we now keep confidential the identities of all our donors." GM was not the only automaker to fund the Heartland Institute: Ford and Chrysler also contributed to it in the past. Ford and Chrysler told The Huffington Post that they had stopped funding the organization over the past decade, but neither automaker had records detailing reasons for pulling that support. General Motors? You mean "Government Motors," home of the Obama supporters. Bob Lutz didn't agree with global warming. He called it a crock of you-know-what. Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303

101. iceagecoming 9:46 PM GMT on March 30, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan: Oh, but, see, you're missing two key points: 1) If you begin on a relatively warm year and end on a relatively cool year, the trendline is flat, or even negative. Therefore, the planet is clearly cooling; 2) The climate in Stykkishólmur, Iceland, is clearly representative of the climate for the planet as a whole. I love it when denialists use data they believe bolsters their side when it actually does the opposite. For instance, Bastardi (yes, him again) on Twitter a short while ago wrote: "By the way, anyone look at this... the actual data as to how little humans contribute to the co2 total http://firsthandweather.com/wp-content/uploads/20 11/12/greenhouse.png DOE report" ...which linked to this chart: The part that Little Joey failed to notice is that for the decade of the 1990s, natural sources of CO2 were being naturally absorbed, but only about half of human-made CO2 was, leading to an average annual build-up of 11.7 billion metric tons. That is, obviously, close to 120 billion metric tons for the decade (and it's gone way up since then). In DenialWorld, 120 billion metric tons of CO2 may seem like only a "little", but it's a whole heck of a lot where warming is concerned. I guess "Little Joey" has "Nobel" company. Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group's promotion of man-made global warming fears. Climate Depot has obtained the exclusive email Giaever sent to APS Executive Officer Kate Kirby to announce his formal resignation. Dr. Giaever wrote to Kirby of APS: “Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I cannot live with the (APS) statement below (on global warming): APS: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' Giaever announced his resignation from APS was due to the group's belief in man-made global warming fears. Giaever explained in his email to APS: "In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.’" Giaever was one of President Obama's key scientific supporters in 2008. Giaever joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorse Obama in an October 29, 2008 open letter. In addition to Giaever, other prominent scientists have resigned from APS over its stance on man-made global warming. Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 21 Comments: 852

Viewing: 51 - 101

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 — Blog Index

Top of Page

New Comment

Community Standards Policy Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

About RickyRood