errr Global Warming?

[Super Nova]

Well, if you study the other thread on this issue, there was a lot of discussion on the models. Now we have observations that support the view that we are heating up.

The evidence grows to support the theory.


Greenland Ice Loss Accelerates 110-Year-Old Record Reveals

Scientists have pieced together a history of Greenland’s ice over the last century

Thousands of black-and-white aerial photographs of Greenland taken between 1978 and 1987 are helping scientists reconstruct a 110-year-long record of ice loss in this region.

A new study published in Nature yesterday that used the photographs found that the Greenland ice sheet lost about 9,000 gigatons of ice between 1900 and 2010 and that the rate has accelerated in recent years. The reduction in the ice mass has contributed to global average sea-level rise of 25 millimeters.

The results are consistent with other estimates, but this is the first time scientists have used actual observations from this far back in time rather than relying on model-generated estimates. “We have observation-based estimates that is new and super important,” emphasized Kristian Kjellerup Kjeldsen, the lead author of the study at the Natural History Museum of Denmark.

Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was missing these crucial data about Greenland’s ice melt in its 2013 assessments of sea-level rise, which excluded the contribution of the ice sheets. The gap existed because of the lack of direct observations of Greenland, according to scientists.

“By processing the historical archive acquired by the Danish during the last century, they were able to provide an estimation of the ice sheet contribution to sea-level rise since 1900, which was critically missing in the last IPCC report,” noted Jeremie Mouginot, a climate scientist at the University of California, Irvine.

Reliable records of this scope both in time and geographic area are difficult to obtain because the use of satellite imagery for climate research became popular only in the 1990s. “The effort to use the old photographs to learn how the margins of the ice sheet have changed is wonderful,” said Richard Alley, a glaciologist at Pennsylvania State University.

“There have been many efforts over the years to photograph the edge of the ice sheet, for many purposes,” he added. “This new effort is the most comprehensive and consistent that I know of to pull evidence together and produces useful and important results.”

Looking back in time
The study—the result of an international team led by climate researchers at the Natural History Museum of Denmark—divided the studied time period into three phases, largely dictated by the availability of data: 1900 to 1983, 1983 to 2003, and 2003 to 2010.

The 1900 start date was chosen to mark the end of what is called as the Little Ice Age. There is some debate about when the “Little Ice Age”—the last time when global average temperatures were falling -- ended, but it is well documented that glaciers started receding around that time as a result of the relative warming of the planet. Regional variations notwithstanding, 1900 was a fair guess for when all of the Greenland ice sheet was in retreat, Kjeldsen said.

More than 3,500 images were recorded during aerial surveys by the National Survey and Cadastre of Denmark in the late 1970s and early ’80s, captured with a camera that used film. These were very high-resolution images that were later digitized.

The 1983 time stamp for the start of the second phase was chosen because it was the midpoint of the period when the photographs were taken. The images from this period are not just a window into where the boundaries of glaciers were when the photographs were taken, but a measure of how far they had receded from their maximum expansion at the end of the Little Ice Age.

The photographs of the landscape allowed the researchers to visually capture the extent to which the boundaries of the glaciers had receded since the 1900s.

The line that demarcates the farthest reach of a glacier from areas that have not been overrun by a glacier is called the trim line. It can be distinguished by the difference in the vegetative cover on either side of the line. When glaciers advance, they erode and transform the landscape they pass over. When they retreat, they leave behind a freshly polished, pristine landscape that is markedly different from land that has not been buried under an ice sheet.

The movement of these large masses of ice also leaves distinct marks on the walls of valleys and in the form of deposits of glacial sediment. Much of the work of analyzing the photographs in the study was left to sophisticated software that is designed for the purpose of processing images and generating estimates.

Making ‘better’ future projections
Using the photographs, the researchers were able to not just map the historical boundaries of Greenland glaciers but also build models and determine how much ice was lost at the periphery of the ice sheet, where the maximum ice loss usually occurs.

Observing techniques have vastly improved with greater reliance on remote sensing data from satellites and aircraft that capture high-resolution images over large areas. For the last phase, from 2003 to 2010, the researchers relied on laser altimetry and radar altimetry to estimate the ice elevation and map the receding ice sheet.

One of the limitations of the work, Kjeldsen pointed out, was comparing rates of ice loss in time periods of different lengths. Their estimations show an average annual ice loss of about 75 gigatons for the first two phases—an 80-year-long period and a 20-year one. The most recent data showed that an average of 186 gigatons of ice was lost during 2003-10, which is only a seven-year period.

However, experts noted that actual observations, despite their limitations, have great value not just to test model data but to improve forecasting. “The new work improves our understanding of history, allowing better model tests and allowing better assessment of how the ice responded to climate changes in the past,” Alley said, “and this will help in making better and more-reliable projections for the future.”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... d-reveals/

[Rorschach]

We need publicly funded sceptics to challenge CO2 witch-hunt
Matthew Canavan
The Australian
December 18, 2015 12:00AM|

In 1589, Princess Anne of Denmark left to marry King James VI of Scotland. En route, her boat was struck by storms. Someone had to be blamed and, as was standard for the time, witches were the usual suspects.

More than 100 suspected witches were duly arrested and at least four people were burned at the stake. The fact James and Anne went on to be happily married, apparently unmolested by tempests, must have reassured them that justice had been done.

The supposed connection between human activity and the weather is an instinctive one and perhaps helps explain the remarkable persistence of incorrect views on climate change.

Every time there is a big cyclone a finger is soon pointed to the modern witch of carbon dioxide emissions. This continues despite there being no evidence that extreme weather events have increased because of global warming. The latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admits that “evidence suggests slight decreases in the frequency of tropical cyclones making landfall in the North Atlantic and the South Pacific”.

A significant issue with climate change science is that often only one side of the debate is heard, so clear exaggerations and untruths can remain unchallenged.

The US military pioneered the use of so-called red teams whose job was to argue against prevailing wisdom, making its strategies more robust. Climate change science would benefit from more red team analysis.

For example, if you listen to the mainstream media, you would not realise that since the last major attempt to forge a climate change agreement in Copenhagen six years ago, the science has become less certain and gives us less reason to worry. This is primarily because the globe’s climate seems less sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide than previously thought.

In just the past 18 years we have experienced one-third of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since the Industrial Revolution, but temperatures have not increased as expected.

Satellite data shows no or only minimal warming, and surface-based measures show a warming rate far below projected climate models. At a US Senate hearing this week, John Christy, a lead author on previous IPCC reports, presented evidence that, on average, climate models over-estimated the rate of warming by three times compared with what actually has occurred.

If these models cannot replicate the past, how can we rely on them to predict the future?

The IPCC has recognised this uncertainty by winding down its estimates of how sensitive the climate is to carbon dioxide levels.

In 2007 it reported a possible range of 2C to 4.5C, whereas last year it reported a range of between 1.5C and 4.5C. More recent evidence indicates that the figures could be even lower.

The greatest uncertainty revolves around debates about the climate impact of aerosols in the atmosphere. A paper published this year in the Journal of Climate by Bjorn Stevens from the Hamburg-based Max Planck Institute for Meteorology argues that the impact of aerosols on climate is significantly smaller than the latest IPCC report assumes.

Using these estimates shows that the upper bound of climate sensitivity should not be 4.5C but just 2.2C.

That is pretty close to what we were told the world needed to avoid dangerous climate change. Readers who are paying attention will note that some green activists are now saying we need to keep warming below 1.5C rather than 2C.

When the facts change, so can your arguments.

Whatever the facts, too much weight is placed on conformity in climate change science — most widely demonstrated by the inane argument that “97 per cent of scientists agree”.

Presumably 97 per cent of pundits agreed in the power of witchcraft in the 16th century.

Science is not a democracy. Scientific knowledge progresses from the ruthless exposure of competing hypotheses to criticism. But who is doing that critique of climate change theories today?

Public funding of climate change science almost exclusively flows to one side of the debate. Even just a small sliver of the reported $US100 billion ($139bn) fund that Paris is creating for developing countries could make a difference.

We need red team funding of scientists who take a different view on climate change. Even if such teams ultimately take positions that are incorrect, by challenging the climate zeitgeist they would make our scientific knowledge stronger. That means the policies we implement would be based less on dogma and more on a true appreciation of how carbon dioxide emissions affect our world.

Matthew Canavan is a Nationals senator for Queensland.

[Super Nova]

"Science is not a democracy. Scientific knowledge progresses from the ruthless exposure of competing hypotheses to criticism."

True.

But a red team to find fault even if they are wrong..... ok. Get some funding. Why does it have to be public money. Find a billionaire or oil company to fund it.

Oh hold on, that's already happening.

There's plenty of funding, funding skeptics. This article is just bullshit.

[Rorschach]

Wrong.... but hey.... YOU are a DENIER

[Super Nova]

I deny I am a denier.

[Rorschach]

"Science is not a democracy. Scientific knowledge progresses from the ruthless exposure of competing hypotheses to criticism."

True.

But a red team to find fault even if they are wrong..... ok. Get some funding. Why does it have to be public money. Find a billionaire or oil company to fund it.

Oh hold on, that's already happening.

There's plenty of funding, funding skeptics. This article is just bullshit.

Perhaps you could bring yourself to correct the more salient facts in the article, on climate and those true deniers like yourself... or not.... keep on denying

[Rorschach]

I deny I am a denier.

http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/S/7 ... Denier.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;[/img]

You don't need to deny it its patently obvious what you are.
Love the stereotype yet another lie believers like you believe

[Super Nova]

97% of climate scientists agree
that climate change is real and man-made, and affecting communities in every part of the country.

Yet too many of our elected officials deny the science of climate change. Along with their polluter allies, they are blocking progress in the fight against climate change.

Find the deniers near you—and call them out today.

Calling out Roach and IQ



Join the fight against deniers here https://www.barackobama.com/climate-change-deniers/#/

[IQS.RLOW]

Obama?


Did you swallow the administrations line on Benghazi being caused by a movie too?

[Rorschach]

Good grief... that old wives tale.
Talk about swallowing the bait hook line and sinker...
That was discredited the moment it first came out.

If you’ve ever expressed the least bit of skepticism about environmentalist calls for making the vast majority of fossil fuel use illegal, you’ve probably heard the smug response: “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?

The answer is: you are a thinking, independent individual–and you don’t go by polls, let alone second-hand accounts of polls; you go by facts, logic and explanation.

The questions to ask is what exactly do they agree on and how did that figure come about? Well the thinking of us know for a fact there is no concensus and that 97% is a lie.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”

—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein ... 100-wrong/

Are the public aware when they are lectured that ‘97% of scientists’ agree based on the Doran paper, by their media, lobbyists, activist scientists and their politicians justifying climate action, that the UK, Germany, Spain, France, Australia, New Zealand respondents made up less than 3% of the survey in total. China had 3 scientists respond (three not 3%), Russian and India zero.

On occasion when challenged about the 97% figure depending on 75 scientists from a survey of 10,000, it is usually met with a response that these were the experts in the field of climate science and this is what maters not the number that took part.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/w ... tists-say/

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?

"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction.

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240 ... 2813553136

And the list and facts go on and on and on SN.

You can call me out any time you like SN... as for OBAMA