Devastating floods on the Missouri River last year were the type of event that will become more and more familiar in a warming world. In the ivory towers of Climate Denial think tanks, “CO2 is good for plants”. In the real world where the rest of us live, things get stickier.
Mason Hansen guns his pickup and cranks the steering wheel to spin through sand up to 4 feet high, but this is no day at the beach.
Hanson once grew corn and soybeans in the sandy wasteland in western Iowa, and his frustration is clear. Despite months spent hauling away tons of sand dropped when the flooded Missouri River engulfed his farm last summer, parts of the property still look like a desert.
–
Shawn Shouse, an Iowa State University engineer and agribusiness expert, said most farmers can repair their land, but for some it will take another year or two of work. The first chore is removing the sand.
“The sand doesn’t hold nutrients and water the way soil does, so it’s not suitable for growing crops,” he said. “If the deposits are thin, they can stir them into the soil and probably get along well. But when the deposits are several feet thick, they really have to move that sand somewhere else. That can be really expensive _ and you have to figure out what to do with it.”
–The U.S. Department of Agriculture has approved more than $20 million in disaster aid for Iowa and Nebraska, which will help farmers with the cost of moving sand, grading land and filling scour holes.
“It’s just totally, totally devastating,” Olson said. “The dollar amount for what it takes to put it all back together again is going to be tremendous. And it’s going to cost you, the taxpayer, in case you haven’t already figured that out.”
Hundreds of farmers are still struggling to remove sand and fill holes gouged by the Missouri River, which swelled with rain and snowmelt, overflowed its banks and damaged thousands of acres along its 2,341-mile route from Montana through North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa and Missouri. The worst damage and the largest sand deposits were in Iowa and Nebraska.
“We’ll be working on this for years,” Hansen said. “It’ll never be right. Ever. People don’t have any idea how big of a mess this is.”
ENVIRONMENTALISTS ARE DEVIL WORSHIPPERS
http://www.agreendegree.com/post/23726263636/so-environmentalists-are-satanic-earth-worshipping
Now what did you go and post that for Bob? I was just about to behead a goat when you so rudely interrupted.
I declined a the Devil’s low ball offer for my soul. He accurately evaluated how much our Earth “worshiping” ways are worth by reading the Bible. For example:
I brought you into a fertile land to eat its fruit and rich produce. But you came and defiled my land and you made my inheritance detestable. – Jer. 2:7
The nations were angry and your wrath has come. The time has come for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great – and for destroying those who destroy the earth. – Revelation 11:18
Peter, here is Australia, there is a general perception that farmers on the most part are politically conservative and either deny climate change or don’t have time for an opinion because they are just too busy working. I am wondering if its the same over there? If so, I wonder how many more devestating events like the one you’ve mentioned it will take to start swinging opinion towards reality.
don’t know how things break down rural/urban or by profession.
generally, the climate denial peaked in about 2009, and
concern about climate and our role in it is going back up.
More and more people are connecting weather extremes with
climate change, even the snowstorms that get some much
play in right wing media.
Even marc Morano told me he was concerned about people’s
reaction to extreme weather events. Things are not
going to get less extreme any time soon.
“Devastating floods on the Missouri River last year were the type of event that will become more and more familiar in a warming world. In the ivory towers of Climate Denial think tanks, “CO2 is good for plants”. In the real world where the rest of us live, things get stickier.”
It appears that who ever wrote this thinks that floods are a new thing. I have been to China 4 times and they know that floods are not a NEW thing but now we can blame them for burning so much coal and the skies are so polluted with smoke because they use no scuppers or any kind of controls and their air will soon be everyone’s air.
The World’s Worst Floods By Death Toll
The Deadliest Floods As Measured By Death Toll
Throughout history, floods have proven to be the deadliest natural disasters. This is mainly due to the high population densities around rivers. 1.
Huang He (Yellow) River, China
1931
Death Toll: 1,000,000 to 3,700,000
The Huang He River is prone to flooding because of the broad expanse of plain that lies around it. One of the major reasons for the flooding is the high silt content that gives the river its yellow tint (and thus its name). The silt—which constitutes as much as 60% of its volume—builds up until the river actually is higher than the surrounding land. The tendency to flood is exacerbated by ice dams which block the river in Mongolia; the dams back up the water, and then release devastating walls of water when they break.
2.
Huang He (Yellow) River, China
1887
Death Toll: 900,000 to 2,000,000
3.
Huang He (Yellow) River, China
1938
Death Toll: 500,000 – 900,000
The 1938 flood of the Huang He was caused by Nationalist Chinese troops under Chiang Kai-Shek when they broke the levees in an attempt to turn back advancing Japanese troops. The strategy was partly successful. By 1940, the Japanese were essentially in a stalemate with Chinese forces.
4.
Huang He (Yellow) River, China
1642
Death Toll: 300,000
Chinese rebels destroy the dikes along the city of Kaifeng, flooding the surrounding countryside.
5.
Ru River, Banqiao Dam, China
1975
Death Toll: 230,000
This flood was caused by the collapse of the Banquia Dam, along with several others, following a heavy rain caused by a typhoon. It is the worst dam related collapse in history.
6.
Yangtze River, China
1931
Death Toll: 145,000
Although the Huang He has caused more deaths, the Yangtze has had more than 1,000 recorded floods.
7.
The Netherlands and England
1099
Death Toll: 100,000
A combination of high tides and storms flooded the Thames and the Netherlands, killing 100,000.
8.
The Netherlands
1287
Death Toll: 50,000
A seawall on the Zuider Zee failed, flooding the low-lying polder.
9.
The Neva River, Russia
1824
Death Toll: 10,000
An ice dam clogged the Neva, flooding nearby cities.
10.
The Netherlands
1421
Death Toll: 10,000
The failure of a seawall on the Zuider Zee flooded the Dutch lowlands.
http://www.epicdisasters.com/index.php/site/comments/the_worlds_worst_floods_by_death_toll/>
A cut and paste job from junk contrarian website, definitely. Much mention of China and Chinese floods. Therefore, can you please explain to me why the Communist Party of China is extremely worried about the potential of climate change to kill many more thousands of people and, ultimately, endanger its own hold on power (as is the Pentagon it must be said)…
See: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-11/22/c_131262368.htm
Martin: I must admit to you that since I, as previously stated, have been to China four different times and have been over a large extent of the country, I must admit that I did not waste any time on your link.
“BEIJING, Nov. 22 (Xinhua) — The Information Office of the State Council, China’s Cabinet, on Tuesday published a white paper titled “China’s Policies and Actions for Addressing Climate Change”. Following is the full text:”
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-11/22/c_131262368.htm
The reason being that while they can say one thing, doing it is a totally different matter and I would hope that you can bring yourself to understanding this.
The last time I was in China was just before the 2008 Summer Olympics when they were “cleaning up their air” and it was very difficult to see much difference from when I was there two times in 2006. During that visit, I went Great Wall at Mutianyu because I had been to the Badaling section on two different occasions. I was so disappointed when I walked around on this amazing section of the wall because the air was so bad I could not get any decent photos. The only place that the air was good was when we took the train from Beijing to Lhasa and on the Tibetan plateau it was clear. Most of the time one can not see the ground from 30,000′ up in an airplane and that is sad and people like you need to understand that this has nothing to do with CO2 but just plain unadulterated pollution because they burn much coal and use no scrubbers or anything else to clean up the air that will becomes your air.
I had the opportunity to go through the Three Gorges in March of 2006 from Chongqing for the 412 mile trip from that city to the Three Gorges Dam and it was a very memorable trip to have made. At that point in time, the dam was not totally finished but, in spite of that, it was being filled with water. One could see how the Chinese had tried to prepare for the future by building bridges that basically, at the time, served no purpose because they had no highways going to them. Entire cities had been moved to the higher ground and docks had been built and bank control had been done far above the water line at the time. The boat that I was on went through the huge double five stage locks, large enough for sea going ships, and to the lake above Yichang and that was also a memorable experience as well as seeing the dam from different view points the next morning before going on to Yichang to leave the boat and try to make my way on to Guilin and the Li River.
After seeing this dam, I thought that if these people can do this they can do anything. One must remember that huge building projects are not new to the Chinese because these are the same people that built the First Emperors Tomb near Xian that is amazing in its own right, the Great Canal and of course the Great Wall.
What follows is what your hero, Al Gore did to help out the United States and its workers and also the climate, if you happen to notice,when along came Clinton with Gore as his environmentally attuned side kick and this is what happened next:
“At the same time, the Clinton Administration, was intent upon establishing a good working relationship with China—but not at the cost of alienating Al Gore’s environmentalists. When U.S. companies expressed a keen interest in getting involved in the construction of the Three Gorges Dam, the Clinton Administration was still split on the issue. Should it allow the U.S. Export-Import Bank to give credit guarantees to companies interested in building the Three Gorges? Here, again, the Gore influence won out. “The Clinton Administration, with Al Gore at the head of their environmental parade, wasn’t going to take on industry head-on,” said Robert Oury, CEO of Rotec Industries, an engineering firm interested in participating in the Three Gorges Project. Instead, it created bureaucratic obstacles. “They put out enough rabbit trails that we just went around and around, and they wore us out.”
Clinton, who must have been aware of the tremendous cost to American industry and workers, went ahead and allowed his Vice-President to have his way on this critical issue:
“In May 1996, in reply to a request for credit guarantees and associated loans by Caterpillar and other major companies bidding for contracts at the dam, the Ex-Im Bank issued a ruling that it would not provide guarantees for the project. Ex-Im President Martin Kamarck, a close ally of Al Gore, told reporters on the occasion of the Board’s decrees,
The Board has concluded that Ex-Im Bank cannot issue a letter of interest for this project at this time. The information received, though voluminous, fails to establish the project’s consistency with the bank’s environmental guidelines.”
“On May 30, the day the Ex-Im Bank made its ruling, Republican Rep. Don Manzullo, representing the 16th District in Illinois, issued a press release stating:
I am very disappointed that Ex-Im Bank has decided to postpone, in effect, deny, support for U.S. businesses and U.S. jobs. By denying support for U.S. exports to the Three Gorges Dam project, billions of dollars worth of U.S.-made goods and services will be lost. That translates into revenues here. Every day that Ex-Im and the Administration drags its heels on this project, it means more lost sales and more lost wages.”
“As a result of the U.S. decision in May 1996 to prevent the Export-Import Bank of the United States from guaranteeing loans for American companies interested in bidding on components for this vast hydropower project, eight of the turbines and alternators are being built by a consortium made up of GEC-Alsthom (Franco-British), and ABB Asea Brown Boveri of Switzerland. The contracts for another six, valued at $320 million, went, in 1997, to Germany’s Voith and Siemens AG, and to GE Canada. The only large U.S. industrial company involved in the Three Gorges Project is Caterpillar, Inc., which has supplied about $30 million of earth-moving and other equipment. Rotec Industries Inc. has also sold about $20 million of equipment to China.”
“Each generating unit has a capacity of 700 MW, the size of a baseload powerplant. The total capacity will be 18,200 million MW, with a planned annual power generation of 84.7 billion kilowatt-hours. It will be the single greatest power plant in the world, about 1.44 times bigger than the largest existing hydropower project built jointly by Brazil and Paraguay at Itaipu. The energy produced annually by the Three Gorges station would replace 40 to 50 million tons of coal, and relieve the corresponding stress on the nation’s railway system, which transports the coal.”
Despite Gore’s efforts, the dam has been built and without the American contribution that was to have been extremely beneficial to the United States had we been able to contribute the technology and equipment as originally planned through the years. This really makes one wonder just what the American people could have seen in this seemingly demented individule back in 2000 when they voted for him when he obviously had little regard for the balance of payments or the American jobs lost by his foolhardy actions. One should keep in mind the amount of coal burning plants this project has taken the place of in a power hunger nation that seems to have little regard for the air quality, one can hardly see the ground from 30,000 feet up in an airplane and almost every where I have been in China on the four occasions that I have been there the air is horrible, to say the least. “The energy produced annually by the Three Gorges station would replace 40 to 50 million tons of coal, and relieve the corresponding stress on the nation’s railway system, which transports the coal.” Time for some more inconvenient truths about Al, his lack of judgment and common sense and the dam he thought he could prevent the Chinese building, as if he had any right to attempt to dictate this or any policy to them.
OK, Martin, is that enough for awhile about China? What do you know about China and have you ever visited the country? I hope that the “copy/paste” has offended you but that is a method I use to get my point across and I fail to see how it cost you even one red cent nor does it waste any resources. Some how I am reminded of something that Benjamin Franklin said: “Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.”
Your self-indulgence is astounding.
Just as well you have been very fortunate to take the train to Lhasa. Climate change will mean it does not last long (meting permafrost etc.). China has a pollution problem. No argument. But, since it is causing global dimming, climate change will only speed up if and when they get it under control.
My Dad was born in China; and I spent a large chunk of 2010 studying it as part of my MA in Environmental Politics.
Martin: Here is some information on your “Green” Military. How much of this can the nation afford when the military’s budgets have already been cut?
“Military leaders like to say that their aircraft, ships and personnel can’t tell the difference between petroleum and biofuel. But their budgets can.
Proponents say that the biofuels industry is at a crucial juncture and needs the right mix of policy, action and financial support to cross the bridge to commercialization. But if any leg of that support goes weak, the military may have to wait even longer for green fuel to reach competitive prices.
To be sure, the costs have been coming down. The Navy is paying $12 million for 450,000 gallons of biofuel to power a carrier strike group off the coast of Hawaii this year. That $26.6-per-gallon purchase is nowhere near the $2.50 the service pays for each gallon of petroleum. (It has been stated that it would be about $16 per gallon if it were mixed with standard jet fuel.) But it can be considered a good deal when compared to what the Navy paid biofuels supplier Solazyme Inc. under a previous contract.
The service in 2009 spent $8.5 million for 20,000 gallons of algae-based fuel. That works out to $425 per gallon. In the fall of that year, the Defense Logistics Agency paid Montana’s Sustainable Oils $2.7 million for 40,000 gallons of fuel from the camelina plant. That’s about $67.50 per gallon.”
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2012/June/Pages/BiofuelsIndustryatCrossroadsasMilitaryWaitsforLowerPrices.aspx>
I suggest you get your own blog; you clearly have much to say.
Meteorologists, at least, are mostly skeptical of CAGW as a whole, let alone the hypothetical connection to extreme weather events.
There’s precious little evidence of any increase in extreme weather events, let alone of anthropogenic causality. Even IPCC lead authors — climate alarmists all! — know that, There is “low confidence” that tropical cyclones have become more frequent, “limited-to-medium evidence available” to assess whether climatic factors have changed the frequency of floods, and “low confidence” on a global scale even on whether the frequency has risen or fallen.
“Meteorologists, at least, are mostly skeptical of CAGW as a whole”
Really Dave? Which meterologists? The following page comes from the World Meterological Organisation and lists its member organisations all of which accept the consensus position on AGW and climate change.
http://www.wmo.int/pages/members/members_en.html
Anthony Watts, Joe Bastardi and a few other television weathermen versus every major meteorological organisation on the globe… I know which position I accept, but maybe you’re a risk taker. Just remember Dave, if you get a brain tumour, there is a consensus position on treatment options available, that has emerged from many years of research by oncological experts. You should probably ignore it and take the advice of a retired dentist down the road, after all, he’s a doctor too.
Mike, I was talking about the opinions of actual, practicing meteorologists, not political statements issued by various organizations.
From the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society we learn that most broadcast meteorologists disagree with the IPPC claim that humans are primarily responsible for recent global warming. (A new survey of all American broadcast meteorologists by researchers at George Mason University confirms that result.)
The opening sentence from the first of those two articles reads, “Only one in four American Meteorological Society broadcast meteorologists agrees with United Nations’ claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent global warming, a survey published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society reports.”
Before some snarky alarmist replies with a knee-jerk disparagement of “TV weathermen,” please note that all of those surveyed in these two polls were credentialed meteorologists, not just journalists on the weather beat.
Correction: I should have said “newer” rather than “new.”
(Time flies like an arrow [but fruit flies like bananas].)
Really Dave, you come onto this site and give us a link to The Heartland Inst. Have you no shame!!
Do you really think that there are any National Meteorological Services that don’t accept the overwhelming and growing evidence of AGW?
Are there any National Scientific Institutes that don’t accept the premise of AGW as laid out by the IPCC?
If what you say is true, daveburton, all you have done is give evidence that three out of four weathermen are morons. Thanks for the update!
Roger, it’s not 3/4 of meteorologists who are morons, it’s the people who ignore them. Do you really think that meteorologists, of all people, are oblivious to the frequency of extreme weather events? Seriously??
You shouldn’t be calling them “morons.” You should be asking yourself, “what do they know that I don’t?”
Bob, you didn’t even have to click on the links to see that the articles are about a report from the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, and a study done by George Mason University. The fact that Heartland reported on them, and ClimateCrocks didn’t, shames ClimateCrocks, not the AMS or GMU or Heartland.
Trying to change topic to whether there is “evidence of AGW” is disingenuous. The argument isn’t over AGW, it is over CAGW. I, like most climate skeptics, do accept that there is evidence of AGW. But most meteorologists, like most other thoughtful observers, are skeptical of Climate Movement alarmism. Dr. Lindzen put it well:
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll back of the industrial age.”
-Dr. Richard Lindzen (Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, MIT)
Just about anyone can be a TV weatherman (except Anthony Watts – who could not hack it).
Please try to pay attention, Martin. As I just said:
Before some snarky alarmist replies with a knee-jerk disparagement of “TV weathermen,” please note that all of those surveyed in these two polls were credentialed meteorologists, not just journalists on the weather beat.
Oh, I’m really disappointed you don’t want a snarky comment, because I had a really good one about the weather presenter at my local television station. Nevermind.
I was discussing the difference between weather and climate with my 5 year old nephew the other day. He got it, so he probably won’t grow up to be a meteorologist.
But I must thankyou Dave for demonstrating the time-honoured tradition favoured by deniers of reading the headline presented by someone else and failing to check the facts. You have stated that “all of those surveyed in these two polls were credentialed meteorologists, not just journalists on the weather beat.”
Well, if you read the Heartland page it says, “To receive an AMS seal of approval members are required to have a degree in meteorology. To receive an NWA seal of approval members must demonstrate sound meteorological knowledge in a written examination and be approved by fellow broadcast meteorologists. Of the 571 broadcast meteorologists surveyed, 55 percent held an AMS seal of approval and 33 percent held an NWA seal of approval.” In other words, 45% from the AMS were not qualified and 67% from the NWA didn’t even meet the self-assessed requirements of their organisation. That can’t be good.
But let’s pretend for a moment that all of these respondents are legitimate, you have posted the headline, “Only one in four American Meteorological Society broadcast meteorologists agrees with United Nations’ claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent global warming.” Assuming you agree with this having posted it, let’s see what the actual report says. It says, “63% believe global warming is caused mostly by natural causes, and only 31% believe humans are primarily responsible.” I must admit, maths is not my stron suit but I’m pretty confident that 31% isn’t 1 in 4. Sorry, I’m getting snarky. My point is, accuracy is very important in science as is reporting. This tells me that, like nearly every denier I have come across, you are lazy.
The thing I find most interesting, and this comes directly from the authors, is this little gem.
“Overall the most trusted sources of climate change information are state climatologists (85%), the NWA (83%), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Weather Service (82%), peer-reviewed journals (80%), the AMS (79%) and climate scientists (73%). The least trusted climate sources were politicians (4%), religious leaders (11%), mainstream news
media (18%), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (44%), and other TV weathercasters (53%).”
I’m not going to state the bleeding obvious. I’ll keave that to someone else.
Finally, you are probably a nice enough guy Bob. I hope you don’t get that brain tumour.
Mike wrote, “‘Of the 571 broadcast meteorologists surveyed, 55 percent held an AMS seal of approval and 33 percent held an NWA seal of approval.’ In other words, 45% from the AMS were not qualified and 67% from the NWA didn’t even meet the self-assessed requirements of their organisation.”
Wrong. 55% of the 571 held an AMS Seal of Approval, and 33% of the 571 held an NWA seal of approval. Some meteorologists are credentialed by the AMS, and others by the NWA. (Note that the AMS no longer issues Seals of Approval. Instead, they now have their Certified Broadcast Meteorologist (CBM) and Certified Consulting Meteorologist (CCM) programs.)
You’ve also apparently confused the results of the two different studies. The AMS study found, “Only 24 percent of the survey respondents agree with United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assertion, ‘Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.'”
In other words, in the AMS study, not even 1 in 4 agreed with the IPCC assertion.
The NSF-funded GMU study found, “63% believe global warming is caused mostly by natural causes, and only 31% believe humans are primarily responsible.”
Other questions, of course, got somewhat different numbers (e.g., , in the AMS study, not even 1 in 5 said they think GCMs are reliable), but the takeaway fact is that most meteorologists are skeptical of IPCC alarmism.
Oops, I stand corrected on my maths (I did say its not my strong point) so we will use yours. 12% of the 571 weren’t credentialled. Do you still stand by your original claim that “all of those surveyed in these two polls were credentialed meteorologists”?
All of this is moot anyway because meteorologists aren’t climate scientists…not even close. In terms of qualifications, meteorologists are to climatology, what nurses are to neurosurgeons.
12% had neither the AMS Seal nor the NWA Seal. That doesn’t mean they were uncredentialed. They presumably had other credentials, such as a degree in meteorology or CCM certification.
Presumably you will see a dentist for a brain tumour. Good luck with that.
So then, now we know how the Mississippi sedimentary basin came to be tens of kilometres deep.
Unfortunately, just as Young Earth Creationists don’t allow this fact to impinge on the irrationality of their beliefs (a.k.a. cognitive dissonance), so it is that many “contrarians” do not allow the increasing frequency of extreme weather events to impinge on the irrationality of their belief (that what is happening is entirely natural).
Most unfortunately of all, however, is that people with irrational beliefs do not give them up when facts show that they are wrong (e.g. as in false prophecies imminent End of the World); they just:
— make excuses;
— re-write history;
— re-interpret science;
— invert reality, and/or
— all of the above.
If Leon Festinger were alive today, he would be a very busy man.
http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2011/10/01/what-on-earth-is-happening/
Pay attention, Martin. As I just mentioned, even IPCC alarmists acknowledge that, thus far, there’s little evidence of “increasing frequency of extreme weather events.”
Somehow I doubt that the lack of evidence of increased frequency of extreme weather events will “impinge on the irrationality of your belief” (that it must be happening, because your belief system requires it).
Meanwhile, the number of consecutive days without a major hurricane landfall in the USA is at an all-time high.
Remind me again, Dave, what is your explanation for the fact that the International Energy Agency, Insurance Companies, and the Pentagon all now accept that any further delay in attempting to de-carbonise our energy generation systems will be a false economy*…?
Oh yes, I remember, conspiracy theory. Thanks for your input; but I will stick with reality.
[* Because the damage done by unmitigated anthropogenic climate disruption will grow harder and more extensive to mitigate the longer we delay taking action.]
1. The commander of the Pentagon is President Barack Hussein Obama. ‘Nuf said?
2. The IEA, in this case, means Fatih Birol, who has no apparent relevant expertise.
3. Insurance companies, which very often have their rates set by regulatory reviewers, are always going to be happy to accept Chicken Little predictions, since they provide justification for higher rates & profits.
Now, it’s your turn, Martin. Since the last ~ 3/4 century of atmospheric CO2 increases, totaling about 90 ppm, have produced no detectable acceleration in the rate of sea level rise, why do you still think that additional atmospheric CO2 will have a different result?
“no detectable rate”
see here
Behold an example of NASA’s scientific malpractice w/r/t sea level rise. This is a slide from a presentation by NASA’s Lee-Leung Fu at a JPL Climate Symposium, Oct 24, 2009:
http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/Fu_Oct24_09_graphing_fraud.jpg
Look at the circles. Do you see what they’ve done?
http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/Fu_Oct24_09_graphing_fraud_circled.jpg
For the “2.0 mm/yr” trend line, they started with a negative noise spike, to get a bigger slope! Do you see it?
And look closely at that final “3.2 mm/yr” tread line:
http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/Fu_Oct24_09_graphing_fraud_zoom.jpg
For that one, they not only started with a negative noise spike, they ended with a positive noise spike! Plus, they stopped short of the end of the data in order to show the greatest possible slope!
That’s how NASA JPL (Willis’s outfit) demonstrated “acceleration” in sea level rise at a JPL Symposium: by simple graphing fraud, which would earn an 8th grader an “F” from any competent middle school science teacher.
The truth is that there’s been no acceleration at all in rate of sea level rise over the period during which mankind has been driving up CO2 levels substantially (roughly the last 3/4 century).
Hmmm… something went wrong with that first link. It should have been:
http://climate.nasa.gov/files/Fu_Oct24_09.ppt
(note that the powerpoint link is a correction to my much longer comment, which is still awaiting moderation… perhaps Peter’s on holiday)
Dave, I think you need to look up the following terms in a scientific dictionary.
Greenhouse Effect, Thermal Expansion, Positive Feedback, Specific Heat Capacity, Latent Heat, Melting, Terrestrial, Ice, Archimedes Principle, Groundwater, and Saline Intrusion.
Martin, I’m the guy who schooled the NSF on Archimedes Principle:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/10/nsf-just-now-figures-out-archimedes-buoyancy-principle/
W/r/t thermal expansion, do you know that gravity balances the ocean’s mass, not volume, so expansion of the upper layer of the ocean affects satellite-measured mid-ocean sea level, but does not significantly affect coastal sea level?
W/r/t positive feedback, I have a degree in systems science, so, yes, I’ve heard of it. And have you heard of negative feeback? And, in that context, why do you suppose the ratio of CO2 molecules to O2 molecules in the Earth’s atmosphere has remained at less than 1 to 500 (but more than 1 to 1200) for millions of years (though sister planets Venus and Mars both have atmospheres mostly of CO2, with little or no O2)?
Hmmm, an interesting attempt to dismiss the thermal expansion of oceans as they warm up… However, even if Gravity is one particular theory that you are willing to endorse (when it suits you), sea level rise has hardly started… But, now that terrestrial ice (in the Arctic especially) is melting, there is very little humanity can do to stop it: Even if we stopped burning all fossil fuels tomorrow, the Earth would continue to warm up for several decades yet.
Indeed, since there is no sign of any politicians being willing to learn the lessons of palaeoclimatic history (a.k.a. embrace reality), sea level rise is likely to continue to accelerate until it reaches the same rate it did 16k to 12k years ago when the Earth emerged from the last Ice Age.
Just a wild guess here, but, could the low levels of oxygen in the atmospheres of other planets have something to do with the absence of biogenic waste products from photosynthesis?
Nice try but, would you care to actually answer the questions:
1. Do you dispute that the absence of CO2 on Mars explains why it is so cold (i.e. colder than it would be if it had retained its atmosphere); and/or
2. Do you dispute that the present state of Venus cannot be explained without reference to a runaway greenhouse effect?
Regarding the CO2 and oxygen content of the atmospheres of Earth, Mars, and Venus, you’re right that the reason we have so little CO2 on Earth is that photosynthetic plants used it up.
But I think you’ve missed the point about the negative feedback loop. The reason CO2 levels never drop much below 200 ppm on Earth is that plants cease growing when CO2 levels get that low, and the reason that CO2 levels never go above a small fraction of 1% of the atmosphere is that the higher the CO2 levels get, the faster the plants grow and the more CO2 they remove from the atmosphere. In other words, CO2 levels are stabilized by strong negative feedback from photosynthetic plants.
Venus and Mars have no plants, so there’s nothing to consume CO2 and produce oxygen. Consequently, both planets have atmospheres which are mostly CO2, with little or no free oxygen. Mars is cold because it is farther from the sun and has a very thin atmosphere (due to its low gravity). Venus is hot because it is closer to the sun and has a very thick atmosphere.
There’s no such thing as “runaway” CO2-driven greenhouse warming. Basic physics indicates that the incremental greenhouse warming effect of additional CO2 diminishes as its concentration increases. MODTRAN calculates that less than 20 ppm CO2 would be required to give us fully half of the warming that our current 392 ppm produces. It also calculates that the next 60 ppm of CO2 will warm the planet only 55% as much (rather than 67% as much) as the last 90 ppm did.
Regarding the melting of ice in the Arctic, here’s a letter to the editor of U.S. News & World Report that I wrote a few months ago (which they didn’t print):
—– Begin letter to the editor —–
U.S. News & World Report
To the Editors:
Your Feb. 8 article, “Earth’s Polar Ice Melting Less Than Thought,” was very informative, but the subtitle was alarmist “spin.” The subtitle was, “The bad news is the extra water from 2003-2010 would fill Lake Erie eight times.”
Most readers don’t know that Lake Erie is a relatively shallow lake, which contains just 2% of the water in the Great Lakes.
Moreover, comparing the volume of water in a lake to the volume of water added to the oceans is an apples to oranges comparison (or, more aptly, a mustard seeds to oranges comparison). If you’d compared apples to apples (ocean water to ocean water), the subtitle would have been something like this:
“At the rate the extra water is being added to the oceans, it would increase the volume of water in the oceans by 1% in 300 centuries, if it continued that long.”
It’s the same information, but without the frightening “spin.”
Alarmists fret that human carbon dioxide emissions will, through what MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen calls “implausible chains of inference,” cause huge increases in the rate of sea level rise. But the science tells a different story.
Human CO2 emissions have been increasing atmospheric CO2 levels substantially since about the 1940s. So how much has rate of sea level rise increased in response?
None.
We have tide gauges around the world which have been measuring sea level for more than 150 years. Most show either no trend or decreasing rates of sea level rise in response to human CO2 emissions. The best and most comprehensive analyses of sea level measured by tide gauges around the world show slight decelerations in the rate of sea level rise over the last 80 years.
We also have 19 years of satellite altimeter measurements of sea level over the open ocean. They also show decreasing rates of sea level rise.
The measurements all agree: the last two-thirds century of human CO2 emissions resulted in no increase at all in the rate of sea level rise. It’s irrational and unscientific to expect that the next two-thirds century will be different.
Dave Burton
—– End letter to the editor —–
The fact that sea level rise has not accelerated indicates that your belief that we’ve reached some sort of ice melt tipping point is mistaken. Clearly, the combined effect of ice buildup and ice melt has not changed appreciably in the last 3/4 century (i.e., since mankind has been driving up CO2 levels an a substantial rate).
If you google for “recovery of glacier girl,” you will read about an airplane recovered from beneath 268 feet of ice, which had accumulated in just 50 years on the Greenland ice sheet. Besides being a fascinating story in its own right, it is proof that the alarmists who are fret about melting Greenland ice are not telling the whole story.
Here’s a US Geological Survey map showing glacier extent at Glacier Bay, Alaska, in the 18th, 19th & 20th centuries:
http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2001/07/glacierbaymap.gif
Notice the big deceleration in rate of glacial retreat during the 20th century.
But there was little anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 before about the 1930s or 1940s. So if glacier retreat is caused by anthropogenic CO2, why were these glaciers retreating faster back in the 19th century, before that CO2 was produced?
I suspect they did not print your letter because they got it peer reviewed first.
U.S. News & World Report? You’re kidding, I assume.
Martin should know just how dynamic and complex the climate is and all of the factors that affect it. Here are some sites to look into, if you care to. The biggest flows out of the atmosphere are photosynthesis on land and CO2 uptake by cold ocean water. These are about 30 times and 40 times respectively the flow of carbon into the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning.
“The pycnocline (meaning rapid change of density) separates the surface layer of the ocean from the deep ocean.
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/deep_ocean.html
“The interaction between water temperature and salinity effects density and density determines thermohaline circulation, or the global conveyor belt.
http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-water-cycle/
“As water travels through the water cycle, some water will become part of The Global Conveyer Belt and can take up to 1,000 years to complete this global circuit.
http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-water-cycle/
“As water temperature increases, the increased mobility of gas molecules make them escape from the water, thereby reducing the amount of gas dissolved
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/seawater.htm
“It is thought that the carbon dioxide in the sea exists in equilibrium with that of exposed rock and bottom sediment containing limestone CaCO3 (or sea shells for that matter). In other words, that the element calcium exists in equilibrium with CO3.
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm
“The oceans are THOUGHT [my emphases] to have absorbed about half of the extra CO2 put into the atmosphere in the industrial age .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13605113
Martin: I must have missed all of those questions that you say that I did not answer. Pose them again, if you care to.
Ok. this technique is known as the Gish Gallop. It was pioneered and named after a leading
proponent of creationism. The idea is you throw so much “sciencey” sounding nonsense against the
wall that you run out the time or patience of others in the discussion.
If you have a single point to make, make it. Wait for a response.
Make your next point. That’s a discussion.
I will not allow my page to become a repository for a bunch of out-of-context nonsense.
If you want to write a book, write it. If you want a blog, start one. But do not
use my blog as a dumping ground.
final warning.
Dave Burton should enjoy these because he seems to be able to think but the one is a repeat of one he has already offered up. I’m not too sure what Martin Lack will think of the information but I’m sure that I will find out soon enough.
“The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.”
who reported this ? the IPCC, the Meteorological Office…. No, that was the US Weather Bureau in 1922.
“The source report of the Washington Post article on changes in the arctic has been found in the Monthly Weather Review for November 1922. It is much more detailed than the Washington Post (Associated Press) article. It seems the AP heaviliy relied on the report from Norway Consulate George Ifft, which is shown below. See the original MWR article below and click the newsprint copy for a complete artice or see the link to the original PDF below:”
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/200389-Flashback-1922-Extra-Extra-Read-all-about-it-Arctic-Ocean-Getting-Warm-Seals-Perish-Glaciers-and-Icebergs-Melt-
This applies to the dire warnings regarding melting glaciers: Keep in mind that Geo. Vancouver’s ships were wind powered; therefore, he wasn’t spewing out any diesel smoke to start this massive retreat of these glaciers. “The explorer Captain George Vancouver found Icy Strait, at the south end of Glacier Bay, choked with ice in 1794. Glacier Bay itself was almost entirely iced over. In 1879 naturalist John Muir found that the ice had retreated almost all the way up the bay. By 1916 the Grand Pacific Glacier was at the head of Tarr Inlet about 65 miles from Glacier Bay’s mouth. This is the fastest documented glacier retreat ever. Scientists are hoping to learn how glacial activity relates to climate changes and global warming from these retreating giants.
http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2001/07/glacierbaymap.gif
Glacier Bay was first surveyed in detail in 1794 by a team from the H.M.S. Discovery, captained by George Vancouver. At the time the survey produced showed a mere indentation in the shoreline. That massive glacier was more than 4,000 feet thick in places, up to 20 miles wide, and extended more than 100 miles to the St. Elias mountain range.
By 1879, however, naturalist John Muir discovered that the ice had retreated more than 30 miles forming an actual bay. By 1916, the Grand Pacific Glacier – the main glacier credited with carving the bay – had melted back 60 miles to the head of what is now Tarr Inlet. http://www.glacierbay.org/geography.html
One must recall that the level of Fort Peck Reservoir was down to where the Missouri River was almost in the old river channel before the, in some places, record snow fall began to melt.
Does anyone think that this presented below had anything to do with the Missouri River?
“Lake Mead, which supplies much of the region’s water supply, saw its water levels fall to a historic low in late 2010 following a decade-long drought. However, a moderate La Niña lasting through May of this year contributed to above average precipitation/snowfall across the northern and central Rockies, and water levels in Lake Mead are expected to increase by about 40 feet in the coming months”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/record-snowpack-across-rockies-continues-its-midsummer-melt/2011/07/08/gIQAjmTg3H_blog.html
OK, I know; if it is a ten year long drought, it is a sure sign of anthropogenic global warming and when it is record snow fall after ten years, that also has to be a sure sign of climate change or what ever you now call it.
“Epic snowpacks in parts of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Oregon, Washington and California have ski resorts bustling with activity, while traditional Memorial Day campgrounds remain covered with snow.
With May snow depths “deeper than anything we have seen in the last 45 years,” Yellowstone National Park has just one campground open.”
http://www.iceagenow.com/Record_snowpack_spoils_Memorial_Day_plans_across_West.htm
It HAS to be climate change, right! Who ever heard of weather cycles such as the ten year long drought during the 1930s when the temperatures were higher than any other time in the 20TH century?
“It HAS to be climate change, right! Who ever heard of weather cycles such as the ten year long drought during the 1930s when the temperatures were higher than any other time in the 20TH century?”
Were they? Global temperatures were higher in the 1930’s than anytime in the 20th century? Interesting. Oh, hang on newsflash.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/global/timeseries.cgi
I’ve been to Australia a couple of times and I know that it can get hot there, but I guess not where you are, Mate. What do you think, I just dream this stuff up?
I’ll follow this with some all time high records for the world and Australia seems to be prominently mentioned.
“Severe drought in 1934 covered 80% of the country, compared with 25% in 2011
In June, 1934 the entire country had triple digit heat. We didn’t come anywhere close to that this summer.”
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/062/mwr-062-06-0212.pdf
The Great Heat Wave of 1936; Hottest Summer in U.S. on Record
1936; A Year of Extremes
The climatological summer (June-August) of 1936 was the warmest nationwide on record (since 1895) with an average temperature of 74.6° (2nd warmest summer was that of 2006 with an average of 74.4°) and July of 1936 was the single warmest month ever measured with an average of 77.4° (beating out July 2006 by .1°). Ironically, February of 1936 was the coldest such on record with an average nationwide temperature of 26.0° (single coldest month on record was January 1977 with a 23.6° average). In February of 1936 temperatures fell as low as -60° in North Dakota, an all-time state record and Turtle Lake, North Dakota averaged -19.4° for the entire month, the coldest average monthly temperature ever recorded in the United States outside of Alaska. One town in North Dakota, Langdon, went for 41 consecutive days below zero (from January 11 to February 20), the longest stretch of below zero (including maximum temperatures) ever endured at any site in the lower 48.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/article.html?entrynum=33
Seems like from the above that damned anthropogenic global warming just can’t decide what to do, even as far back as 1936 in the US anyway.
This site below verifies what is maintained above.
Steele, N DK July,1936: 121* F
Parshall, N DK 1936 –60* F
http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0930236.html
What follows are world record high temperatures: World (Africa) El Azizia, Libya; Sept. 13, 1922, (136F):
North America (U.S.), Death Valley, Calif.; July 10, 1913 (134F);
Asia; Tirat Tsvi, Israel, June 21, 1942, (129F):
Australia ,Cloncurry, Queensland; Jan. 16, 1889 (128F):
Europe, Seville, Spain,Aug. 4, 1881 (122F):
South America, Rivadavia, Argentina; Dec. 11, 1905 (120F):
Canada,Midale and Yellow Grass, Saskatchewan, Canada; July 5, 1937 (113F):
Oceania;Tuguegarao, Philippines, April 29, 1912 (108F):
Persian Gulf (sea-surface): Aug. 5, 1924 (96F):
Antarctica; Vanda Station, Scott Coast, Jan. 5, 1974 (59F):
South Pole, Dec. 27, 1978, (7.5F).
Highest average annual mean temperature (world): Dallol, Ethiopia (Oct. 1960 Dec. 1966), 94° F.
Longest hot spell (world): Marble Bar, W. Australia, 100° F (or above) for 162 consecutive days, Oct. 30, 1923 to Apr. 7, 1924. Notice anything regarding the dates of these records? Anyone heard of the dust bowl & wasn’t that in the 30s
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001375.html
This site confirms what is presented above and if you find a fault in these statistics, please tell the site as well as me because I do not want to be spreading false information.
http://www.worldfactsandfigures.com/weather_extremes.php>
I will not dispute any of these facts, well chosen to support your argument that… Well now, what exactly is your argument? Do you dispute that global average temperatures have risen by 0.8 Celsius in the last 100-150 years? Do you dispute that most of this is due to CO2? Exactly where does your need for humans not to be responsible for what his happening begin to make it necessary for you to dispute empirical observations that confirm that the enhanced greenhouse effect is a reality?
Have you nothing further to add regarding China in response to my earlier comment?
Martin: I understand why and how you would not be able to get my point and wonder ” Well now, what exactly is your argument?”
It appears to be beyond your ability to reason out that, since these records still hold, and some of them have stood for 131 years. The Death Valley record was set 99 years ago and was the world record high temperature for 9 years before the Libyan record exceed it. I know due to your not being able to rationalize these things out that you do not wonder that if, as you and others here maintain, the earth is running “fever” because of anthropogenic global warming, then why have these record high temperature stood for so long as all time high records?
This should open me up to another ad hominem attack from you where you produce no facts, as usual, but only attempt to berate me and I rather enjoy your predictable responses; but, I do not intend to waste my time replying to sophomoric displays of immaturity.
What was that if not an ad hominem attack? I am not attacking you; and I have no desire to debate the validity of the scientific consensus.
You keep defending your position by validating my criticism of it. Your arguments have all been previously debunked elsewhere. This is why I waste so little of my time on you.
P.S. You have not answered any of my very specific questions.
I’m not fond of cherries but you clearly are.
How can this be? This doesn’t seem to be the first floods on the Missouri or the Mississippi Rivers, if one can believe what I present below.
The Great Mississippi and Missouri Rivers Flood of 1993 (or “Great Flood of 1993”) occurred in the American Midwest, along the Mississippi and Missouri rivers and their tributaries, from April to October 1993. The flood was among the most costly and devastating to ever occur in the United States, with $15 billion in damages. The hydrographic basin affected cover around 745 miles (1,199 km) in length and 435 miles (700 km) in width, totaling about 320,000 square miles (830,000 km2).[1] Within this zone, the flooded area totaled around 30,000 square miles (78,000 km2)[2] and was the worst such U.S. disaster since the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927, as measured by duration, square miles inundated, persons displaced, crop and property damage, and number of record river levels. In some categories, the 1993 flood even surpassed the 1927 flood, at the time the largest flood ever recorded on the Mississippi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Mississippi_and_Missouri_Rivers_Flood_of_1993
Folks should keep in mind that through the years the Army Corps of Engineers has been raising the levies and guess what, the rivers have been dropping sediment and raising the river bottom where back when nature had a hand in this, the sediment was deposited on the flood plane when the river flooded, which it has done since time immemorial, agw or not.
Indeed. CO2 is up, but extreme weather events are not.
That’s true. CO2 is up, but extreme weather events are not.
Mate if you want to ignore the averages in the links I sent you and continue to cherrypick single data points, this is going to become a very long boring exchange. I’m not in the mood to waste my time explaining stats 101 to you. You are embarrassing yourself here by continuing withthat line and if you don’t have the good sense to feel embarrassed then I suggest you look up the Dunning Kruger effect and read about yourself.
Mike; sorry about not getting back to you sooner but I have been away from the computer of late because I have better things to do. I will offer up an answer to Martin soon to his: “I will not dispute any of these facts, well chosen to support your argument that… Well now, what exactly is your argument?” and if neither of you can not understand the point of my “argument” I would say that is a big part of YOUR problem and not mine.
Borenstein quoted John Christy who pretty well summed up the situation:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/10/26/ap-impact-statisticians-reject-global-cooling/
Hey there Mate, do these averages go back FAR enough for you?
Global Temperature Trends From 2500 B.C. To 2040 A.D.
Until recently, global temperatures were more than a degree Fahrenheit warmer when compared to the overall 20th Century mean. From August of 2007 through February of 2008, the Earth’s mean reading dropped to near the 200-year average temperature of 57 degrees. Since that time, the mean reading has been fluctuating. (See Long-Term Chart Below.)
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
So Mike, just how believable are your temperature graphs?
“In 1975, the National Academy Of Sciences produced this graph of Northern Hemisphere temperatures, which showed a strong cooling trend from the late 1930s until the late 1960s. It showed that the 1930s was by far the hottest decade.”
http://www.real-science.com/hansens-tremendous-data-tampering
Martin should be interested in this one since he is a disciple of Hansen’s.
In 1999, Hansen wrote the text below. And then he suddenly changed his mind the next year.
“Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath.” James Hansen
http://www.real-science.com/hansens-tremendous-data-tampering
Al Gore / AIT Index, Vol. 14: Globally averaged temperatures have plunged .74°F (.39°C) since Al Gore released An Inconvenient Truth
http://algorelied.com/?p=2429
Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Hansen : Hiding The Decline In Greenland
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/hansen-hiding-the-decline-in-greenland/
Hiding The Post-1981 Decline In Hansen
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/12/hiding-the-post-1981-decline-in-hansen/
The IPCC 1990 FAR predictions were wrong
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/the-ipcc-1990-far-predictions-were-wrong/
So now on top of cherrypicking you want to add propaganda from denier blogs as evidence? You are hopeless.
The only thing with any factual basis in that last pile of garbage was the bit about AAAS’s 1975 graph which did indeed demonstrate that the 1930’s was the hottest decade…up until the when that paper was written. Those temperatures were quickly overtaken in the 1980’s and are at an all time high now.
I reiterate that you really should look into the Dunning Kruger effect because you are completely delusional in your own self belief.
You’re mistaken, Mike. jdouglashuahin is right. As recently as ~12 years ago, Hansen et al still said that the 1930s were the hottest decade in the USA, and 1934 was the hottest year, and significantly hotter than 1998.
A 1999 article by Drs. Hansen, Ruedy, et al, said, “in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934.” The following year, a longer article by Dr. Hansen said, “it is clear that 1998 did not match the record warmth of 1934.”
This was a graph which accompanied Hansen’s 2000 article:
http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/NASA_1998.fig3.GIF
Compare the 1998 spike to the 1934 spike in that graph: you can see that 1934 was 0.9 F warmer than 1998 in the contiguous 48 United States, according to NASA in 2000.
In the 1999 Celsius version of the same graph, the difference was even greater:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/fig1x.gif
You can see (in the left-hand graph) that 1934 was 0.6 C = 1.1 F warmer than 1998, according to NASA in August, 1999.
But now NASA says that 1998 was warmer than 1934 in the contiguous United States!
BTW, http://www.giss.nasa.gov is hardly a “denier blog”[sic].
Ugh! Way to go Dave! Now I really have a sore forehead. It may well have been warmer at one point in the 1930’s than in 1998 IN THE USA. What is really great about you is the way you post bits and pieces that actually has the information that tells the real story. Classic. Tell me genius, what was the global average temperature doing at those times?
This is getting extremely tedious. You can go on cherrypicking to your heart’s content but until you actually come up with something meaningful this is pointless. I just don’t get why you can’t understand that cherrypicked information is useless. Seriously, go and do a basic stats course or something. Even my primary school aged daughter understands this stuff.
Mike, I think you’ve forgotten the topic. Let me remind you. This is what we were talking about:
“So Mike, just how believable are your temperature graphs? … In 1999, Hansen wrote the text below. And then he suddenly changed his mind the next year.”
In just the last 13 years, the extant U.S. temperature record has been revised so much that the revisions have added a warming trend equal to the entire sum of the reported 20th century’s global warming. That’s the old data, which has been revised/adjusted/corrected/homogenized, so drastically.
What accounts for such a drastic revision? Scott Mandia couldn’t tell me. Can you?
Now, the U.S.A. might be a small percentage of the Earth’s surface, but it has a disproportionately large percentage of the Earth’s supposedly-reliable long-term temperature records. If there are big questions about the trustworthiness of even the U.S. surface temperature record (and there obviously are!), then just how unreliable might be the supposedly-lower-quality temperature records from most of the rest of the planet?
What percentage of the Earth’s surface do you think has surface temperature records which are better than the USA’s?
This is my last response for the reasons I already outlined. Please go and do a stats course. It is pointless me trying to explain to you where you are wrong because you are failing to understand even the most basic statistical assumption errors you are making. This time its the difference between accuracy and precision.
The US could have 200 gazillion of the most accurate temperature records ever devised in the history of the entire friggin universe and dating back thousands of years and it still does not alter the fact that you cannot extrapolate that to the rest of the world. Stats 101. Actually its not even Stats 101. It’s high school level stats.
So once again, yuo ar egrossly over-estimating your own abilites here. I’m actually starting to feel a little embarrassed for you. If you don’t have the good sense to be embarrassed you’re a lost cause.
Mike, you didn’t answer the question. What percentage of the Earth’s surface do you think has surface temperature records which are better than the USA’s? (Just a rough estimate will do.)
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477%281997%29078%3C2837%3AAOOTGH%3E2.0.CO%3B2
That’s a 1997 paper. I know where you are going with this and I repeat… accuracy and precision. Go and do a stats course because you just don’t get it.
I’m sure if you go to NOAA they have all the information you need. I know that will be a bit of a challenge for you since denier blogs is your main trusted source for information.
“So now on top of cherrypicking you want to add propaganda from denier blogs as evidence? You are hopeless.”
Mike, I am not the one that is hopeless. The post that I made that you replied “I’m not fond of cherries but you clearly are.” was not cherry-picking because it gives the record world wide high temperature records and when I present an answer to Martin to explain what my point is, I received no response to that understandable explanation.
You seem to imply that one is suppose to believe such garbage as Mann’s totally flawed Hockey Stick that does not show known global climatic events such as the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval climatic optimum (AD 700-1200) that was followed by the LIA. These are historically proven facts and stood the test of time before politics enter science and
then in 1995 the IPCC realized that; “MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD: “WE HAVE TO GET RID OF IT”. A major problem for the Anthropogenic (i.e., Man-made) Global Warming theory is the Medieval Warm Period of a thousand years ago.”
CLIMATEGATE: 30 YEARS IN THE MAKING
http://www.klimarealistene.com/climategate_timeline_banner.pdf
It appears that some can not see that they have been “had” and want to continue to live a lie.
FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt “Well, it’s been a real day of revelations, never mind the week. This morning ….
……. , I’ve found that most if not all of the Australian bulletin stations have been unceremoniously dumped into the files without the briefest check for existing stations.”
Now there appears to be a new Australian Hockey Stick. This one actually shows that around the year 1300 it was warmer than now but there appears to be major inaccuracies with major parts it.
“First, a study by Gergis et al., in the Journal of Climate [Update: this paper has been put on hold – see comments] uses a proxy network from the Australasian region to reconstruct temperature over the last millennium, and finds what can only be described as an Australian hockey stick.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/05/fresh-hockey-sticks-from-the-southern-hemisphere/
“Again, thanks to the tireless efforts of Steve McIntyre, truly a hero of the realist cause, the paper by Joelle Gergis (climate activist), which claimed a Hockey Stick in Australia (and who then refused to release the data), has been put on hold.”
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/06/aussie-hockey-stick-paper-put-on-hold/
“Another hockey stick snaps”
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/another_hockey_stick_snaps/
You might enjoy viewing this video:
Climategate ‘hide the decline’ explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller
Again, do not insult the intelligence of the posters on this blog.
Using Muller’s 2 year old, out of context nonsense, when he is clearly on the
record, after intensive study, as approving of Mann and other’s work as
“excellent”.
And if you haven’t seen my damn videos, go watch them for Christ’s sake.
That’s what this blog is about. You reveal not only gross ignorance, but
arrogance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tciQts-8Cxo
gish gallop.
I invite you to come over to my blog and we can discuss your apparent Dunning Kruger affliction to your hearts content. By replying constantly to you I feel I am contributing to the ire of Peter and this is his blog. You have made yourself unwelcome here so please come to my blog. I will not be responding to you again in here.
What most meteorologists know, but a lot of folks here don’t, is that elevated CO2 does not seem to be causing an increase in extreme weather events.
Martin; please tell me what substance you are on to cause you to make this statement:
“Just as well you have been very fortunate to take the train to Lhasa. Climate change will mean it does not last long (meting permafrost etc.).”
2012 Winter weather
At least 53 people died and 574 were injured in western and northern Japan, in five prefectures along the Sea of Japan in the Tohoku and Hokkaido region.
Europe had extremely cold weather late January and early February, with temperatures around -30°C in central Europe and northern Balkan, and freezing temperatures all over Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extreme_weather_events
In January, the coldest weather in decades, accompanied by heavy snowfall and high winds in areas, occurred throughout Russia, Eastern Europe, and Scandinavia, leaving hundreds of people dead. Snow fell throughout Europe, even as far south as the Greek Isles or the Portuguese sea resorts, with record-setting snowfall and near-record cold in many areas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extreme_weather_events
30th December 2010
WINTER MAY BE COLDEST IN 1000 YEARS
“Britain’s winter is the coldest since 1683 and close to being the chilliest in nearly 1,000 years”
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/169577/Winter-may-be-coldest-in-1000-years/
Last Updated: Wednesday January 05 2011 17:09 GMT
Several ships and more than 1,000 crew got stuck in arctic ice off the coast of Russia after the sea froze over!
http://cdnedge.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_9340000/newsid_9341000/9341080.stm
Tragedy unfolding in Europe – Is U.S. media trying to ignore it?
February 13, 2012
“The cold snap in Europe, which began in late January, has killed hundreds and brought deep snow where it hasn’t been seen in decades,” says this article in the Seattle Times.
http://iceagenow.info/2012/02/tragedy-unfolding-europe-u-s-media-ignore-it/
11 January 2012 Last updated at 10:30 GMT
Alaska snow and ice cuts off Cordova and Nome
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16495880
Arctic treeline advance not as fast as previously believed
Carey Restino | The Arctic Sounder | Mar 18, 2012
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/arctic-treeline-advance-not-fast-previously-believed
Thursday, April 05, 2012
Year that winter forgot, Mongolia edition: “Coldest winter in local memory” killed as much as 40 percent of many families’ livestock
Nina Wegner: Last of the Nomads: How Mongolian Culture May Change Drastically Within a Generation
With temperatures reaching -40 to -60 degrees Fahrenheit throughout January, it was the coldest winter in local memory, and animals both froze and starved to death. Most families in Azraga said this year was even worse for them than the notorious dzud of 2010, in which almost 8 million head of livestock, or 17 percent of the entire country’s animals, died and the government of Mongolia declared disaster status.
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/04/year-that-winter-forgot-mongolia.html
Martin; I hope that you are aware that Tibet and Mongolia are not far apart, as the snow flakes fall, anyway, I have spent some time in Mongolia I really feel for these people. I doubt that you care or can imagine what it would be like to suffer through these conditions in a ger.
Mongolian herders see their animals destroyed as freezing winter temperatures grip the country
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/7449122/Mongolian-herders-see-their-animals-destroyed-as-freezing-winter-temperatures-grip-the-country.html?image=8
“Scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the unpardonable sin.” Huxley
I do not want to provoke another load of gish gallop from you. That is why my responses to you (if I make them) are brief. Do you not understand the nature of the refutation of your arguments that you are being given? I am sorry to have to ask the question but, if you did, surely you would not respond with yet more of the same?
I think your problem is that you have spent so long looking through the wrong end of the telescope, you have forgotten what the real world looks like. I am sorry if you will take offence at this; it is merely my opinion. However, it is an opinion that is validated by much recent history:
http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/the-problem-with-inverting-reality/
You are welcome to visit my blog too but, as with Peter (and unlike Mike), I will not put up with the behaviour you have exhibited here.