Bingo.
What? where you ignorant that climate researchers did not ignore that bit?
That is not the answer to the question made to you, but thanks for avoiding answering, the evidence here points to being a climate change denier.
And no, that was not the only point Pat Michaels made.
KNO3
March 21, 2010, 2:29am
83
Global warming causes glacier growth in these areas. Just so obvious that global warming causes glacier growth in Alaska, California, Himalayas, Norway, France, Argentina, and Switzerland. All at once.
KNO3:
Global warming causes glacier growth in these areas. Just so obvious that global warming causes glacier growth in Alaska, California, Himalayas, Norway, France, Argentina, and Switzerland. All at once.
Not at once, the best information out there still points that most of the glaciers are receding still.
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/01/glaciers-have-always-grown-and-receded.php
Firstly, it is more than “a few glaciers” that are receding, it is a pervasive, sustained and accelerating global trend. The National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) maintains a chart of global glacier mass balance, and for as far back as their data allows us to look, all but a few years have shown a loss in ice volume of subpolar and mountain glaciers. Further, annual losses are increasing.
But no one claims that melting glaciers are proof of Global Warming. Proof is a mathematical concept. In climate science one needs to look at the balance of evidence and in that light, the above data is just one piece of evidence that is consistent with Global Warming.
So what do we find if we look to the other aspects of the cryosphere?. It turns out what we find is lots more evidence that is indicative of world wide and sustained temperature increases:
* Sea ice in the arctic is reaching new record declines as the year 2006 continues the pattern of sharply decreasing Arctic sea ice.
* Recent measurements by NASA have found that Greenland's massive ice sheet has been losing nearly 100 gigatons of ice annually in recent years.
* Glaciers in Greenland are receding and calving at record rates
* Ancient permafrost is also thawing, (which represents its own dangers)
And of course, this is all consistent with all the other evidence of warming that there is out there. Clearly we are dealing with much more than a few receding glaciers.
Slanderous.
Yes he made the point that there is nothing much to worry about.
He also made the point that claiming that there was no warming from 1998 (1995) is a point that should not be made, do you agree with him?
BTW everyone can notice that you did not really answer the original question.
Do you agree with him that global warming is taking place and humans are a reason?
KNO3
March 21, 2010, 2:57am
87
Ah the 2006 report. Yes I agree in 2006 glaciers were receding.
But now in Alaska, California, Himalayas, Norway, France, Argentina, and Switzerland that is not the case.
One scientist getting his/her study published in a peer reviewed climate journal would be enough for me to consider investigating. However not even this much has been provided. I truly wish that global warming was not happening, but with the Northern ice cap getting smaller every year, the evidence is irrefutable.
It is too late to save our Santa Claus.
KNO3
March 21, 2010, 3:01am
89
GIGObuster:
He also made the point that claiming that there was no warming from 1998 (1995) is a point that should not be made, do you agree with him?
BTW everyone can notice that you did not really answer the original question.
Do you agree with him that global warming is taking place and humans are a reason?
Maybe once NASA releases it’s raw data. Until then it is not science.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2462-nasa-faces-foi-lawsuit-over-climate-data
And after NASA fixes it’s math.
http://www.geotimes.org/aug07/article.html?id=WebExtra081607_2.html
KNO3:
Ah the 2006 report. Yes I agree in 2006 glaciers were receding.
But now in Alaska, California, Himalayas, Norway, France, Argentina, and Switzerland that is not the case.
Ah yes, ignore that organizations continue still posting after that.
Glaciers across the globe are continuing to melt so fast that many will disappear by the middle of this century, the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS) said today.
The announcement of the latest annual results from monitoring in nine mountain ranges on four continents comes as doubts have been cast on how much climate scientists have exaggerated the problem of glacier melt, which is seen as a leading indicator of how much the planet is heating up.
Last week the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) apologised for “a paragraph” in its four-volume 2007 report which warned there was a “very high” risk that the Himalayan glaciers, on which at least half a billion of the world’s poorest people depend for water, would disappear by 2035.
However the director of the WGMS, Professor Wilfried Haeberli, said the latest global results indicated most glaciers were continuing to melt at historically high rates.
“The melting goes on,” said Haeberli. “It’s less extreme than in years [immediately before] but what’s really important is the trend of 10 years or so, and that shows an unbroken acceleration in melting.”
KNO3
March 21, 2010, 3:08am
91
Hey neat! They track 100 glaciers. Not one of the glaciers on my list. They do not track growing glaciers!
http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/mbb/sum08.html
Ahh, non-science at it’s finest!
Squink
March 21, 2010, 3:09am
92
The part that has anything to do with proving or disproving APGW.you rub blue mud in your belly, but that’s just blue mud, not scientifically valid skepticism. For that you need facts and measurements and physical models and such. From my small sampling, your list of 500 “peer reviewed” articles does not look like a worthwhile source of such things.
Depends on the point. I believe it is perfectly valid to state that there has been no statistically significant warming for the last 15 years.
I believe there has been some warming since the little ice age and it is possible humans may have had some influence but mainly through land use changes which has more of a regional than global effect. No I do not believe humans are the main cause of the minor warming since the little ice age and no I do not believe CO2 is the primary driver.
KNO3
March 21, 2010, 3:15am
95
I’m waiting until NASA releases it’s raw data and fixes it’s math before I come to any conclusion.
Funny how cherry picking works uh?
Here is a hint: what do you think is more valid? A sample of 100 or a sample of the few glaciers that denier sources point to?
There are hundreds of scientists that have gotten published and many in climate journals,
500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming
It is not getting smaller every year it has increased in size since the 2007 single day summer minimum and the Antarctic ice is increasing,
Antarctic Ice Melt at Lowest Levels in Satellite Era World Climate Report )Antarctic sea ice increasing: study ABC News, Australia )Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking The Australian )Satellites Show Overall Increases In Antarctic Sea Ice Cover NASA )
KNO3
March 21, 2010, 3:24am
98
I agree, both are bad science. But there is no comprehensive study on glaciers. Hence neither of us can be accurate. Funny that huh?
So an AGW denier in the end…
It is not really as slanderous, you are indeed refusing to accept the current evidence. You are entitled to your opinions but not the facts.
What the science says…
Correlations between warming and economic activity are most likely spurious. They don’t take into account local forcing agents such as tropospheric ozone or black carbon. Correlations are likely over-estimated since grid boxes in both economic and climate data are not independent. Lastly, there is significant independent evidence for warming in the oceans, snow cover and sea ice extent changes.
See Spurious correlations between recent warming and indices of local economic activity (Schmidt 2009) for more info.
What the science says…
When you read Phil Jones’ actual words, you see he’s saying there is a warming trend but it’s not statistically significant. He’s not talking about whether warming is actually happening. He’s discussing our ability to detect that warming trend in a noisy signal over a short period.
A headline in the Daily Mail claims that Phil Jones, ex-director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, said ‘there has been no global warming since 1995’. Not only did Phil Jones not say these words, this interpretation shows a poor understanding of the scientific concepts behind his words. To fully understand what Phil Jones was saying, one needs to read his actual words and understand the science discussed. Here is the relevant excerpt from the BBC interview:
BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
Phil Jones: I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
Phil Jones is saying there is a warming trend but it’s not statistically significant. He’s not talking about whether warming is actually happening. He’s discussing our ability to detect that warming trend in a noisy signal over a short period. To demonstrate this, look at the HadCRUT temperature record from 1995 to 2009. The linear trend is that of warming. However, the temperature record is very noisy with lots of short term variability. The noisy signal means that over a short period, the uncertainty of the warming trend is almost as large as the actual trend. Hence it’s considered statistically insignificant. Over longer time periods, the uncertainty is less and the trend is more statistically significant.
What the science says…
The main driver of the warming from the Little Ice Age to 1940 was the warming sun with a small contribution from volcanic activity. However, solar activity leveled off after 1940 and the net influence from sun and volcano since 1940 has been slight cooling. Greenhouse gases have been the main contributor of warming since 1970.
The Little Ice Age was a cooler period spanning the 16th to the 19th century. The river Thames often froze over. The Norse colonies in Greenland were unable to survive the harsh winters. After 1850, temperatures began to rise. But man-made CO2 emissions in the late 19th century were a fraction of current levels. Did human activity take us out of the Little Ice Age? Were there other factors? And what does it mean for current warming? This question is addressed in an analysis which examines the various factors that drove climate since the 19th Century (Meehl 2004).
This analysis is a useful reminder that CO2 is not the only driver of climate. To end the Little Ice Age, the sun did most of the early heavy lifting. When the solar contribution flattened out in the mid-20th century, humanity took the baton and we’ve been running with it ever since. Meehl 2004 is also confirmation that past climate change tells us how sensitive climate is to radiative forcing. The climate that responded to the forcing from the warming sun in the early 20th century is the same climate that is now responding to the forcing from rising greenhouse gases.
Maybe you are confused? The paper specifically says,
“Soon (personal communication, August 31, 2006) observes that NASA funds programs mainly on social-political reasoning rather than science.”
Which is very relevant since various parts of NASA are proponents of AGW and alarmism.
Squink:
Maybe socio-economics makes you rub blue mud in your belly, but that’s just blue mud, not scientifically valid skepticism. For that you need facts and measurements and physical models and such. From my small sampling, your list of 500 “peer reviewed” articles does not look like a worthwhile source of such things.
I am absolutely amazed at your intellectual dishonesty in looking for pure science papers in the socio-economic section which is intentionally at the bottom of the list. Anyone honest can see through your game.
I am glad you can now determine the full and complete discussion of a paper by it’s title.
The only one who has made themselves look like a fool is you and your intellectual dishonesty of cherry picking socio-economic papers which are CLEARLY labeled and crying about their lack of science discussion is evident for everyone to see. You must try harder because people will start learning these papers exist and you have to get better at smearing them. Quick! Quick!