Never mind....

[Flying Orca]

Got warming? "Nah, I didn't think so."

Pure malarkey. There is no, repeat no, valid science contradicting the basic findings of the IPCC - that climate change is happening and is in part driven by human activity. This basic finding is accepted by every legitimate national and international scientific body in the world.

Let's see yours.

[Art Read]

Science should not be used as a "protective shield" by those who advocate policy change based upon the theory of AGW. Not if the "science" is policy driven. Science is the search for truth. It reflects the discovery of new information regardless of bias. Has the warming disappeared? Antarctic, and now arctic sea ice expanding? Polar bears thriving? Sure. Shout it down as "heartless capitalism". Don't make you right.

[ljb5]

Antarctic, and now arctic sea ice expanding?

Sheesh, Art, I thought we just covered this.



Are you seriously going to look at that and repeat the claim that arctic sea ice is expanding!?

[Flying Orca]

Science should not be used as a "protective shield" by those who advocate policy change based upon the theory of AGW. Science is the search for truth. It reflects the discovery of new information regardless of bias.

Correct.

Has the warming disappeared?

No.

(That, in case you have trouble recognizing it, is a link to a site that talks about actual science, complete with links to scientific papers. It is not a propaganda piece in a conservative newspaper. Because you believe the science is incorrect, your confirmation bias leads you to seek out and redistribute such propaganda as if it were truthful or reliable, when in fact it is neither.)

[Art Read]

"There is no, repeat no, valid science contradicting the basic findings of the IPCC"

How's that whole Himalayan glacier thingie going for you?

[Flying Orca]

"There is no, repeat no, valid science contradicting the basic findings of the IPCC"

How's that whole Himalayan glacier thingie going for you?

Do you have a valid scientific source that contradicts what I said? No, you don't. You know why? Because there aren't any.

But by now, you know that, probably, and in addition to being an ignorant troll, you've become petulant. I suspect you've served your purpose as a bad example; back under your bridge.

[hanleyclifford]

Is it possible that the area coverage of the artic ice cap could be increasing while total volume of ice continues to shrink?

[Art Read]

Sheesh, Art, I thought we just covered thi's.

"Expanding" def. Growing. Bigger than before. Not "bigger than it ever was", not just bigger than it was a hundred years ago, just bigger than it was,as in NOT SHRINKING.

[Art Read]

No, Norman, Gareth simply pointed out my geographical idiosyncrasies and nautical liabilities, so I made a few admittedly local observations. (Why, has the weather changed noticeably in YOUR neighborhood recently?)

[David G]

Are you actually trying to contend that it is your personal anecdotal observations which leads you to discount scientific climate analysis?

if so, then I guess we are not talking about honest differences of opinion regarding scientific evidence....

...more like, we are dealing with what can only be called 'willful ignorance'. No intelligent person would EVER substitute a single person's anecdotal observations for genuine scientific data.

Just so.

Can one become willfully stupid? It seems so.

[Art Read]

"Is it possible that the area coverage of the artic ice cap could be increasing while total volume of ice continues to shrink?"

Give me a grant, an Arctic capable research vessel, a few comely assistants and I"LL PROVE IT!"

[Art Read]

NPR? Yeah. I guess they are pretty biased.

[RedBoatFl]

A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century.

If correct, it would contradict computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming. The news comes several years after the BBC predicted that the arctic would be ice-free by 2013.

[Art Read]

NPR? Yeah. I guess they are pretty biased. How's this?

News, Community, Action
PEOPLEGROUPSDIARIESTAGSLABORCOMICSELECTIONSECONRAD IO
SEARCH TERM1

clb8FollowRSS
Daily Kos member
ProfileDiaries (list)Stream
MON JUL 11, 2005 AT 04:36 PM PDT
Ice Caps Expanding?
byclb8Follow
Email 25 Comments / 25 New
Help. I'm having a 'discussion' with a winger on a rightie site about global warming and he's offered the following research to back his position that no, there is nothing warming...
I've never seen this data before but if it's not accurate there must be some rebuttal data I can offer. Any of you seen these claims before and have links to offer to set the facts straight?
Summary: More recent studies of the polar ice caps show the polar ice caps are holding their own and actually growing slightly. A study published in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate (Yuan, X. and Martinson, D.G., "Antarctic sea ice extent variability and its global connectivity," Volume 13: 1697-1717 (2005)) demonstrated the Antarctic polar ice cap has been expanding. According to the study, 18 years of satellite data indicate the mean Antarctic sea ice edge has expanded by 0.011 degrees of latitude toward the equator each year. A later study, also published in Journal of Climate (Watkins, A.B. and Simmonds, I., "Current trends in Antarctic sea ice: The 1990s impact on a short climatology," Volume 13: 4441-4451 (2003)) reached a similar conclusion. The study reported significant increases in Antarctic sea ice between 1987 and 1996. The study further indicated the 1990s exhibited increases in the length of the sea-ice season. Just off the Arctic polar ice cap, ice coverage in Greenland was also shown to be steady and likely increasing. A study in Journal of Geophysical Research (Comiso, J.C., Wadhams, P., Pedersen, L.T. and Gersten, R.A., Volume 106: Viewed as a whole, the new ice cap studies indicate no global warming has occurred in recent decades, at least not in high latitudes. These findings also offer an important insight into one of the more significant controversies surrounding global warming theory. Surface vs. satellite readings Surface temperature readings taken by humans indicate the Earth has warmed by approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 100 years. This warming is certainly not much, but it is often cited as evidence that global warming is occurring, even if it is merely in its initial stages. However, precise satellite readings of the lower atmosphere (a region that is supposed to immediately reflect any global warming) have shown no warming since readings were begun more than 20 years ago. "We have seen no sign of man-induced global warming at all. The computer models used in U.N. studies say the first area to heat under the 'greenhouse gas effect' should be the lower atmosphere, known as the troposphere. Highly accurate, carefully checked satellite data have shown absolutely no warming," explained Tom Randall of the National Center for Public Policy Research. Global warming skeptics have pointed out that most of the surface temperature readings indicating a warming have been taken in underdeveloped nations, where reliability and quality-control are questionable. In developed nations such as the United States, by contrast, the readings tend to show no warming. Moreover, skeptics note, surface temperature readings are influenced by artificial warming associated with growing urbanization, which creates artificial heat islands around temperature reading stations. The recent polar ice studies, which measured surface rather than atmospheric temperature trends (and which were far removed from the effects of urban heat islands and questionable third-world temperature readings), lend weight to the argument that satellite readings, not surface monitoring stations, are correct. "In considering all of the above results, it is likely that the global extent of sea ice is on the rise. Such observational evidence flies in the face of model predictions of global warming that say climate will change first and to the greatest extent in the Earth's polar regions," concludes CO2 Science Magazine. CO2 Science suggests that self-regulating mechanisms, such as clouds, enable the Earth to keep a relatively steady climate despite the changes in CO2 concentration that have been a regular part of Earth's history. Viewing the new data in conjunction with other studies that properly filter out the imperfections of human-collected temperature readings, CO2 Science concludes, "There has been no global warming for the past 75 years."
ORIGINALLY POSTED TO CLB8 ON MON JUL 11, 2005 AT 04:36 PM PDT.

[David G]

A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century.

If correct, it would contradict computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming. The news comes several years after the BBC predicted that the arctic would be ice-free by 2013.

That would be quite interesting! Can you keep an eye out, and let us know when it's been published, peer-reviewed, and analyzed a bit... so we can all become more fully informed?

[Chip-skiff]

Viewing the new data in conjunction with other studies that properly filter out the imperfections of human-collected temperature readings, CO2 Science concludes, "There has been no global warming for the past 75 years."

Okay. So why is the arctic permafrost melting?

Perversity?

[Art Read]

The authors....

American Meteorological Society
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Question book-new.svg
This article relies on references to primary sources. Please add references to secondary or tertiary sources. (May 2012)


Harrison Gray Otis House on Beacon Street in Boston
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) promotes the development and dissemination of information and education on the atmospheric and related oceanic and hydrologic sciences and the advancement of their professional applications. Founded in 1919, the American Meteorological Society has a membership of more than 14,000 professionals, professors, students, and weather enthusiasts. Some members have attained the designation "Certified Consulting Meteorologist (CCM)",[1] many of whom have expertise in the applied meteorology discipline of atmospheric dispersion modeling. To the general public, however, the AMS is best known for its "Seal of Approval" to television and radio meteorologists.
The AMS publishes nine atmospheric and related oceanic and hydrologic journals (in print and online), issues position statements on scientific topics that fall within the scope of their expertise, sponsors more than 12 conferences annually, and offers numerous programs and services. There is also an extensive network of local chapters.
The AMS headquarters are located at Boston, Massachusetts. It was built by the famous Boston architect Charles Bulfinch, as the third Harrison Gray Otis House in 1806 and was purchased and renovated by the AMS in 1958, with staff moving into the building in 1960. The AMS also maintains an office in Washington, D.C., at 1120 G Street NW.
Contents [hide]
1 Seal of Approval
2 Certified Broadcast Meteorologist (CBM) Seal
3 Awards
4 Publications
5 Policy statements
5.1 Statement on Climate Change
6 Past presidents
7 References
8 External links
Seal of Approval[edit source | editbeta]

American Meteorological Society seal.jpg
The AMS Seal of Approval program was established in 1957 as a means of recognizing television and radio weather forecasters who display informative, well-communicated, and scientifically sound weather broadcast presentations. The awarding of a Seal of Approval was based on a demonstration tape submitted by the applicant to six members of a review panel after paying an application fee. Although a formal degree in meteorology was not a requirement to obtain the original Seal of Approval, either appropriate military training or the minimal requirements of undergraduate meteorology courses, including at least 20 semester college credits appropriate for a meteorology major, must have been taken before applying (ensuring that the forecaster has at least a minimal required education in the field). There was no minimum amount of experience required, but it was recommended that applicants had some previous experience in weather forecasting and broadcasting. It is worth noting that many broadcasters who obtained the Seal of Approval did in fact have formal degrees in meteorology or related sciences and/or certifications from accredited University programs. Upon meeting the core requirements, having the seal, and working in the field for 3 years that broadcaster may then be referred to as a meteorologist in the broadcast community.
As of February 2007, more than 1,600 Seals of Approval had been granted, of which more than 700 are considered "active."[2] Seals become inactive when a sealholder's membership renewal and annual seal fees are not paid.
The original Seal of Approval program was phased out at the end of 2008.[3]
Note: The NWA Seal of Approval is issued by the National Weather Association and is independent of the AMS.
Certified Broadcast Meteorologist (CBM) Seal[edit source

[LeeG]

"Nice troll, Art."

It's been ten years, at least, that I've been trying out this particular lure. Never fails. Nothing changes but the level of hysterical indignation, moral certainty and over the top hyperbole.

Then try contributing something of substance

[Art Read]

But don't worry, there's plenty of folks still on your side. You see the icecap is actually growing 'cause it's melting faster! All that fresh runoff is making it freeze faster. I don't know... Sounds like weather to me.

[ljb5]

Sheesh, Art, I thought we just covered thi's.

"Expanding" def. Growing. Bigger than before. Not "bigger than it ever was", not just bigger than it was a hundred years ago, just bigger than it was,as in NOT SHRINKING.

Oh, I see.

Now you're restricting your definition so that it applies to just one year --- and hence is worthless.

That seems dishonest.

I really doubt you'd be able to maintain that position for more than a couple of years. Lord knows, if you'd bet that proposition over the last thirty five years, you would have lost consistently.

[Art Read]

"Then try contributing something of substance"

I think I am. In ten years, "Global Warming" will be right up there with "The Population Bomb", "The End of Oil", "The Limits to Growth" and every other disguised Malthusian wet dream on the ash heap of liberal angst. We'll be burning natural gas furnaces to melt down the worn out wind generators all across the country and debating uselessly over the coming "Water Crises"...

[Art Read]

"Lord knows, if you'd bet that proposition over the last thirty five years, you would have lost consistently."

Yet, I'd be right over the last hundred. How come you get to set the parameters. Thirty years, even a hundred is an eyeblink.

[Art Read]

I'm just arguing that "science" has been politicized on this topic. By both sides. Just ask yourself, when has the term "consensus" ever before had any scientific significance?

[ljb5]

Yet, I'd be right over the last hundred. How come you get to set the parameters. Thirty years, even a hundred is an eyeblink.

I think you're going to have to show the data supporting that claim.

You haven't willingly provied any data yet, so I hold out low hope that you're suddenly going to pull some data.

[Keith Wilson]

Yet, I'd be right over the last hundred.

No you wouldn't.



And over the longer term. Obviously the earlier data is less reliable, from indirect evidence rather than direct observation.

[L.W. Baxter]

Arguments over climate trends always oversimplify the situation, both in terms of measurable physical reality and of human consciousness.

My own perception of the measurables is that ocean acidification due to elevated CO2 may end up being the greater threat in the long run.

And my perception of the human place in the drama is that our world is always ending and being renewed. There may be a great deal of suffering in store, but ours is a staggering history of pain, much of it self-inflicted.

A variation in global mean temperature can be an age-long curse when viewed from afar, or completely irrelevant to the collapse of one's personal cosmos. In other words, if you are rotting in a cell, or a refugee camp, or getting bombed to pieces, dying of parasites, starving in a mud hut, eating yourself to death in a dingy apartment, falling into dementia without a friend in the world, being raped, murdered, sold into slavery, or otherwise cruelly extinguished without a single phuck being given, who really cares about the possible, future status of the climate? Only the self-actualized, well-fed beneficiaries of a fully developed post industrial society can even afford to worry about it.

[David G]

Arguments over climate trends always oversimplify the situation, both in terms of measurable physical reality and of human consciousness.

My own perception of the measurables is that ocean acidification due to elevated CO2 may end up being the greater threat in the long run.

And my perception of the human place in the drama is that our world is always ending and being renewed. There may be a great deal of suffering in store, but ours is a staggering history of pain, much of it self-inflicted.

A variation in global mean temperature can be an age-long curse when viewed from afar, or completely irrelevant to the collapse of one's personal cosmos. In other words, if you are rotting in a cell, or a refugee camp, or getting bombed to pieces, dying of parasites, starving in a mud hut, eating yourself to death in a dingy apartment, falling into dementia without a friend in the world, being raped, murdered, sold into slavery, or otherwise cruelly extinguished without a single phuck being given, who really cares about the possible, future status of the climate? Only the self-actualized, well-fed beneficiaries of a fully developed post industrial society can even afford to worry about it.

Just so. And... because we CAN afford to worry about it, I believe it is incumbent upon us to do so. Noblesse oblige has some pungent connotations... but is, in many ways, a useful tool for civilization.

[L.W. Baxter]

Sure, David. But then, I would have thought it incumbent upon us to care about a lot of things we obviously don't give a rat's ass about.

I find the manic worry over climate change in the developed West a not terribly surprising, but disappointing, contrast to our generalized indifference to stuff that doesn't affect us.

[BrianW]

Didn't we have a thread about the 'lake' at the pole a few weeks back?

That one turned out a bit lame as proof of global warming too. But it proves that people like to point to the Arctic when they want to push their stance on the issue.

[hokiefan]

Do you think the 40 million Bangladeshi's that live at sea level in a flat overcrowded delta, in a country of 140million, have no interest in it or doesn't there problem rate?
The faster melting of the Himalayan snows means greater flooding, the increase in sea temperatures means more tropical cyclones. All are major disasters in Bangladesh already and will only get worse.
That's just the Bangladeshis, there are millions across the world that live in similar areas and have no real alternative place to go.

But you think they don't care or don't have the self indulgent leisure of the West to care as you put it!!

What he's saying is that they have worse today problems (starving...) than flooding (next months problem). If you can't survive today, who really gives a hoot about next week, next year, next decade. My $0.02

[hokiefan]

interesting that you don't think any of those events are having any affect on whether those people are having their daily struggles increased.
Every time the tide comes in it brings salt water further into the fresh water table. Wells and ponds used for crops and drinking are just being salt poisoned and it happens with every tiny increment of change in something like tide, fields are poisoned or eroded. Increased river flow eats at lowlying fields. it is constant, not just rare major catastrophes.

When I was 10 or so my Sunday School teacher's son and his wife were missionaries in Bangladesh. In those days it was East Pakistan. While they were there a typhoon hit, flooding much of the country. The fallout of the (non)response by the Pakistany government led to Bangledesh's ultimate independence. I think Bangledesh has been there done that... Not saying it isn't aweful, just not new.

[bogdog]

interesting that you don't think any of those events are having any affect on whether those people are having their daily struggles increased.
Every time the tide comes in it brings salt water further into the fresh water table. Wells and ponds used for crops and drinking are just being salt poisoned and it happens with every tiny increment of change in something like tide, fields are poisoned or eroded. Increased river flow eats at lowlying fields. it is constant, not just rare major catastrophes.

So what's the answer for Bangladesh?

[Flying Orca]

Is it possible that the area coverage of the artic ice cap could be increasing while total volume of ice continues to shrink?

They're both shrinking. Year-over-year variation is just noise in the signal, as even a cursory examination of the ice record will show.

[Keith Wilson]

Exactly; we have a noisy signal with a very clear trend over the longer term. You'd think it would be obvious by now when somebody points to one year's noise and yells "See? Global warming is nonsense!", that the intellectual dishonesty would be just too blatant, but apparently not. Reasonable people may disagree about what we should do about it, but there's simply no question anymore that it's happening.

[Flying Orca]

"Is it possible that the area coverage of the artic ice cap could be increasing while total volume of ice continues to shrink?"

Give me a grant, an Arctic capable research vessel, a few comely assistants and I"LL PROVE IT!"

The comely assistants are largely mythical*, and the required grants are quite modest (scientists don't do science to get rich, and they generally get paid a relatively tiny salary out of those grants), but the rest has been done. The first such expedition was SHEBA/JOIS, and the researchers were amazed that they could hardly find any multi-year ice in the Beaufort. There have been more since. It's not a life of luxury.