Spokane7
55°
January 30, 2011 in Nation/World
Warming theory holds, climate experts insist
Cold, snowy winters don’t negate science
A snowplow cleans the sidewalk in front of the White House in Washington on Wednesday.
(Full-size photo)
WASHINGTON – Tree limbs snap, the power goes out, the car needs digging out again. Along with the grumbling about winter snow there’s also a common curiosity: So what does all this say about global warming?
How can the average world temperature be inching up and 2010 be tied for the warmest year ever, when places from North Carolina to New England get buried by whopper winter storms?
There are several scientific explanations that help sweep away the snow confusion.
But like everything else related to climate science, it’s all rather muffled these days, at least in the nation’s capital.
Those who don’t accept climate science are vocal. Some of those who do accept it think it’s better to talk about jobs or technology, rather than what’s going on with warming oceans and atmosphere.
Democratic pollster Douglas Schoen opined in the Washington Post after last winter’s big snowstorms in Washington that “the weather … makes it more difficult to argue that global warming is an imminent danger.”
President Barack Obama, his Cabinet and Democrats in Congress who think it’s important to reduce emissions of heat-trapping gases from fossil fuels have talked about how transforming our use of energy can produce jobs. Climate change, which along with dependency on fossil fuels is the key reason for the transformation, gets almost no mention.
In the State of the Union speech, Obama never uttered the words “climate change” or “global warming.”
Scientists describe many effects of a warming climate if emissions continue unabated, and some of them have serious implications for fisheries, agriculture, habitation and health. But snow? Don’t throw the shovels out.
Weather Underground founder Jeff Masters explained on his WunderBlog last week that big snowstorms don’t indicate that global warming isn’t happening.
So far the global average temperature has warmed an average 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880, with bigger changes nearer the poles. And there’s even more warming still in the pipeline. “There will still be colder than average winters in a world that is experiencing warming, with plenty of opportunities for snow,” Masters wrote.
The latest report on climate change by federal scientists, “Global Climate Change Impacts in the U.S.,” said precipitation has increased by an average of about 5 percent in the past 50 years. It projects that northern areas generally will become wetter, and southern areas, especially in the West, will become drier.
Meanwhile, two current ocean and atmosphere patterns help explain winter cold and snow.
The climate phenomenon La Niña is linked to a cooling in sea-surface temperatures in the equatorial Pacific. Its opposite is El Niño, the warming of those waters.
La Niña is mainly responsible for this year’s weather patterns, said Ignatius Rigor, an atmospheric scientist at the Polar Science Center at the University of Washington.
La Niña was expected to bring more snow to the Pacific Northwest, much of the Upper Midwest and New England.
“Even in a warming world we will still have natural oscillations like day and night, winter and summer, and in this case El Niño and La Niña,” he said.
Another possible reason for colder winters and more snow is linked to the loss of Arctic sea ice and the effect that change has on the winds that circle the North Pole.
In 2010, the extent of sea ice cover in the Arctic at its lowest point in September was 31 percent less than the 1979-2000 average. It was the third lowest year after 2007 and 2008.
Open water and water covered by thin ice allows heat stored in the ocean to escape to the atmosphere. The autumn release of heat weakens the winds that normally circle the North Pole and act as a fence keeping cold air in. When the circle of winds, the Polar Vortex, breaks down, cold air spills south.
Stocks plummet as outlook in Europe dims 
hawken on January 30 at 3:57 p.m.
Global Warming related to CO2 gas is a “fraud.” To quote Dr. Don Easterbrook, Western Washington University, below:
“Global warming hype is nothing less than a gambit for more government control over our lives.”
Quote
In reference to the last decade of the Earth’s cooling, geologist Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, emeritus professor at Western Washington University, says, “Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.” Global warming hype is nothing less than a gambit for more government control over our lives. End Quote
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/opinion/walter-williams/5764-true-or-false-global-warming-manufacturing-decline
More of the fraud revealed:
Quote
The catastrophic Global Warming hypothesis fails to show that changes in carbon dioxide drive changes in temperature. Changes in carbon dioxide do not account well for the highly variable climate we know the Earth has had, including the Roman Warming (200 B.C. to A.D. 600), the cold Dark Ages (A.D. 440 to A.D. 900), the Medieval Warming (A.D. 900–1300 when CO2 levels were much lower than today), and the Little Ice Age (1300–1550 when there were few sunspots). The catastrophic Global Warming hypothesis is a feeble theory made seemingly true by pure repetition…..
Doomsayers are claiming that climate can be adjusted in some predictable way, but it can not. It is fraud to claim that it can. As published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Richard Lindzen of M.I.T. has conducted studies that thwart the greenhouse effect. What that means is that “just because the greenhouse effect is real, it does not follow that an increase in intensity will necessarily lead to a significant increase in mean global air temperature, as climate alarmists are wont to claim…Hence it is not inconceivable that an increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration may result in no warming at all. Or even a cooling!…Much more research will be required before we can determine that the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content even constitutes a problem, much less specify its magnitude and prescribe ameliorative measures for dealing with it.” End Quote
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/floy4.html
and more….
31,000 scientists reject ‘global warming’ agenda
‘Mr. Gore’s movie has claims no informed expert endorses’
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=64734
Meanwhile, those on the left such as Al Gore, some in Congress, and Obama, want to impose upon American Industry and consumers, exorbitant, unnecessary, costs that will be passed on to consumers. It will also result in the loss of more jobs. Example, Obama’s “Cap and Trade” (cap and tax).
JBlim on January 30 at 9:53 p.m.
While it is true that Don J. Easterbrook, a geologist, is a climate change skeptic, the following earth science professional organizations have issued declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming:
American Geophysical Union
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
Those issuing non-committal statements are:
American Association of Petroleum Geologists
American Association of State Climatologists
American Geological Institute
American Institute of Professional Geologists
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
“With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on global warming.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
So while it’s good to have skeptics, at some point you need to get a reality check.
mmspowaus on February 02 at 4:11 a.m.
Hawken:
Here is a reality check for ya….
Jblim is a frequent blogger who is more active during election time….with the exception of the subject of global warming….
Unfortunately, Jblim is sold on the ‘settled science’ approach to global warming (this science is settled to don’t bother me with facts to the contrary…)
After reading his blog entry I did a simple search and found this where he cut and pasted his list of organizations:
So I looked up one at random…here is what I found…
2007 AAPG revised position
Acknowledging that the association’s previous policy statement on Climate Change was “not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members”, AAPG’s formal stance was reviewed and changed in July 2007.
The new statement formally accepts human activity as at least one contributor to carbon dioxide increase, but does not confirm its link to climate change,saying its members are “divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has” on climate.AAPG also stated support for “research to narrow probabilistic ranges on the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on global climate.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_of_Petroleum_Geologists
Note the points
‘…human activity as at least one contributor to carbon dioxide increase, but does not confirm its link to climate change,’
and
‘…its members are “divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has” on climate.’
1) AAPG does not state that human activity is a significant contributor to global warming.
2) This is a VOTE of an organization; it an opinion of a group of people…it is not scientic results and hard data….
Including AAPG as a “earth science professional organizations have issued declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming:” is just not factual.
Don’t blame Jblim however Hawken…he is a cut and paste intellectual…he has no real understating of the basic chemistry behind global warming but he does know how to Google, cut and paste from Wikipedia….and believes whatever is posted there…
There lies the rub however….
mmspowaus on February 02 at 4:11 a.m.
Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Global warming from Conservapedia
This article lists examples of Bias in Wikipedia, related to global warming:
1. Conservapedia posted the news about liberal corruption of global warming science (climategate) on its Main Page on the very first day: November 19th. But it took Wikipedia over two weeks to give priority to this bombshell, and even now its entry is remarkably biased against it.[1]
2. 100’s of other climatologists have been removed from the category “Global warming skeptics”, which Wikipedia decided to delete.[2][3]
3. Wikipedia’s most controversial pages are guarded by liberal elite. Thereby, accuracy is replaced with ideology. [4] The first one-hundred and sixty-eight words on Wikipedia’s Global Warming page contains multiple conjectures, major errors and bias. “increase in the average measured temperature … since the mid-twentieth century” that same paragraph “solar variation combined with volcanoes … and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward.” Which is it, warmer or cooler from 1950? “very likely due” “probably had” or “the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC’s main conclusions”- unsubstantiated bias.
4. Liberal elites at Wikipedia have embraced the ideology of Al Gore’s Global Warming. It is with great sadness that ClimateGate has emerged as a worldwide news story. In an attempt to shrug-off the story, Wikipedia labels the page Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, with ClimateGate as only a redirect. [1] Next, Wikipedia claims the CRU was illegally hacked but other sources say possibly an inside job. [2] Finally, Wikipedia is sure to include plenty of climate change alarmists views discounting the incident; a smear campaign, an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen, James Hansen “no effect on the science” , UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Ed Miliband “We should be cautious about using partial emails that have been leaked to somehow cast doubt…” [3]
5. A recent charge is that U.K. scientist and Green Party activist and Realclimate.org member William Connolley functioned as a Wikipedia editor and website administrator, repressing information that militated against Climate Change. As such he “rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period.”[5]
Human caused global warming is more politics than it is science…the earth has warmed and cooled long before the industrial revolution and will long after we are humans dust….
Taxing (aka punishing) folks for problems they did not caused is amoral.
mmspowaus on February 02 at 4:16 a.m.
Just for fun, watch Newt testify before congress about Al Gore and his lack of facts in his Global Warming crusade…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?=G7VUg7nG3lw&feature=related
JBlim on February 03 at 6:42 a.m.
matt monroe, aren’t you the guy who claimed that since CO2 heavier than air, it would sink to the bottom of the atmosphere and suffocate the inhabitants of Earth? You are not exactly a science whiz.
In spite of your verbose replies and irrelevant links, it is still true that no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on global warming, like Dr Easterbrook does.
mmspowaus on February 03 at 7:56 p.m.
CO2 is heavier than air Jblim…
I have designed an experiment if you have the intellectual honesty to try it…
I have offered to share it with you but you have always refused….
Otherwise, I guess you must except it is true that CO2 is heavier than air…(which most people would understand since air is almost entirely 02 and N2…not because I say so but because it is…
This is the problem of never studying science Jblim….you don’t know enough to understand the very very basics….yet you are a cut & paste pontificator of science issues…
JBlim on February 03 at 10:20 p.m.
matt, your idea that CO2 will sink to the bottom of the atmosphere is patently ridiculous. If it does, why aren’t we all suffocating? You can do your little experiment in your kitchen, but that’s a closed environment. Try it in the real world, like outside on a windy day. Then you think you’re qualified to second guess the world’s leading climate scientists. Like I said, you’re no science whiz.
mmspowaus on February 04 at 4:28 a.m.
Jblim:
You have proven the proverb: “Rebuke a fool and he will despise you… “
Don’t misconstrue and misrepresent, Jblim…
You only wish to bleat what you think you know to be true… CO2 is heavier than air Jblim…and you do not have the courage to admit it. It is not my opinion, it is scientific fact. A fact you should have learned in high school chemistry…but obviously you didn’t….
Note the following….
,http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/lvo/activity/monitoring/co2.php
I assume you except the USGS to be a creditable source…this is but one example of the earth emitting CO2…there are others
The global warming argument is not if the earth warming or cooling but if human activity is significantly contributing to the change….
Until rock solid, verifiable, peer reviewed proof is supplied, it is amoral for governments to punish folks via taxes to stop what is really a natural process… that is assuming tax loving liberals are moral…
You are out of checkers Jblim, game over
Just for fun, read how Nobel Prize Winner Al Gore disgraced himself on Conan
You could watch it but NBC will not allow it to be viewed anymore…here is the text:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/18/al-gore-earths-interior-extremely-hot-several-million-degrees
Al Gore is an empty suit who generated this hype for nothing more noble than profit….Your hero Jblim, is a ZERO….
and for the issue of climate change, he is a NERO…
JBlim on February 04 at 6:06 a.m.
LOL matt. Like you, Al Gore is not a scientist. We are not having a debate about whether CO2 is heavier than air. I am mocking your belief that CO2 and the other atmospheric gases stratify out at ground level. Get it? Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m having a little trouble breathing because the CO2 level is so thick today . . .
mmspowaus on February 04 at 5:25 p.m.
You can try to spin but it won’t work, Jblim…I’m resigned to believe you are willingly ignorant and refuse to learn regardless of the facts presented…this is your choice…wallow in it all you like…
For anyone else reading…
May he one day be exposed and held accountable for the crimes against humanity he has committed….
JBlim on February 04 at 8:01 p.m.
So what am I ignorant of anyway? Let’s agree that CO2 is heavier than air. Now will you agree that CO2 doesn’t sink to the bottom of the homosphere as you seem to think? Everyone can see through your attempted snow job by bringing up Al Gore. Will you agree that CO2 doesn’t sink to the bottom of the homosphere? Yes or no.