Sunday, July 01, 2007

Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny

Great article showing all the spin and half truths spewed out by algore and the environmentalist wackos...

Some of the highlights:

For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."

Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."

Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.

Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.

Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts. However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, "Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa."

Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain." In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.

Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.

8 comments:

Jim said...

Ah yes, another James M. Taylor essay "proving" that global warming is a hoax. Just like he's proved that cigarette smoking is not a health hazard.

Find some quotes from someone who isn't funded by Exxon Mobil or the API.

PCD said...

Jim,

You are not only a few bricks shy of a load, you never had the load to begin with.

Put up some real scientific research to prove your point. And stop being a gorebot.

Also, if we take how a pundit is funded, then we have to exclude all those funded by the government and coerced by government subsidies. Does that leave you any creditable person? Barney the Purple Dinosaur doesn't count.

The Game said...

I don't know...I see statements backed up by facts...not the spin like the picture of the polar bear "stranded" on a melting ice cap...
If your side is the correct side, you don't need to manipuate data...this seems legit to me

Chet said...

Also, if we take how a pundit is funded, then we have to exclude all those funded by the government and coerced by government subsidies.

Um, why? There's an obvious profit motive for receiving "consulting" fees from Exxon Mobil or whoever; you can spend them wherever you want.

Government research grants aren't anything like that. You can't even pay yourself out of them, I know this because I've worked under USDA funding. The big checks from the oil companies, they don't care if you buy a new car. But the government looks over your shoulder on every purchase you buy.

It's ridiculous to assert that the funding researchers get to do research connotes the same loss of credibility as getting paid millions by oil companies to shill for them.

You are not only a few bricks shy of a load, you never had the load to begin with.

PCD pretty much everything you write is a load.

Chet said...

I see statements backed up by facts...

I see statements refuted by facts. Here's the Himalayan glaciers over time:

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2005/03/the_roof_of_the.html

That they've possibly gained a little ground back is irrelevant, since they wax and wane with the seasons and the snowfall. In aggregate they're still shrinking.

Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit.

Nice try, but the deforestation is the result of global warming. Next!

Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.

That's disputable. More heat energy in the atmosphere means more storms, and it's undeniable that the atmosphere's heat energy level is increasing:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/04/sci_nat_climate_change___evidence_and_predictions/img/1.jpg

However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past.

It's difficult to take a claim like that seriously when anybody can look at the data and see that powerful hurricanes are increasing:

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3318/hurricanes3fr.gif

However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, "Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa."

Another nonsense claim. In this map you can see just mow much of Africa is considered vulnerable to desertification:

http://soils.usda.gov/use/worldsoils/papers/desert-africa-fig2.gif

But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain."

Since Taylor doesn't cite any of these studies by name, it's hard to examine his claims, but this claim is clearly misrepresented: While Greenland ice masses gained slightly for part of 2005, it wasn't enough to offset the previous year's loss, with the result of a net decline in mass:

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/images/ocp2007/gallery-large/images/OCP07-Fig-16.jpg

Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades.

I gotta wonder - did you guys even look up his claims before you pronounced him correct? Because every claim of his I look up turns out to be false. Here's NASA's data on Antarctic ice mass change over time:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/jpl/images/content/144020main_grace-20060302-browse.jpg

James Taylor is substantially wrong, or misrepresents the research, on every single issue you've quoted. None of the facts back up his statements.

The Game said...

Chet, I have to admire your work on that answer...but are you spinning on purpose or is it just your nature...honestly...

Its late so I'll just comment on a few:

First link didn't work, cant comment...

Then you say:
Nice try, but the deforestation is the result of global warming. Next!

I don't even understand the logic here. Global warming causes people to cut down trees?

The article claims the amount of hurricanes has not been increasing...then you write:
It's difficult to take a claim like that seriously when anybody can look at the data and see that powerful hurricanes are increasing:

The fact that you needed to throw in the word powerful to make your case tells me whatever your link said doesn't show that the overall amount of hurricanes has been going up...and how many powerful hurricanes did the US have last year....thats right...zero

You pic about Africa doesn't tell me if that is better or worse than in the past...so you didn't disprove anyone there...but good effort.


Your chart about Greenland seems to prove you correct, however I have no report on who measured the mass of the ice sheet, and how they measured it. Poor data collection can lead to poor results....Not saying there is for sure, but it is possible. I guess same arguement for both your charts...

jhbowden said...

"There's an obvious profit motive for receiving "consulting" fees from Exxon Mobil or whoever; you can spend them wherever you want."

This is the Marxist pose of identifying people as the bourgeoisie, and then denouncing them as selfish enemies of the proletariat. No thought required! Note that those who disagree with the so-called consensus often get death threats from leftwing eco-terrorists, so they're not doing it for their health.

There's definitely nothing sacred about government money that leaves people in a state of grace. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If money determined all, those getting government money are the same situation-- disagree with the government bureaucrats in charge, and you'll see your funding cut. Hell, if I was currently doing research, and the government refused to fund it for political reasons, I'd raise money in the private sector too.

Chet said...

The fact that you needed to throw in the word powerful to make your case tells me whatever your link said doesn't show that the overall amount of hurricanes has been going up...and how many powerful hurricanes did the US have last year....thats right...zero

Try not to be obtuse. The US isn't the only place in the world that gtes hurricanes. Indeed, the number of force 4 hurricanes did increase last year; it's just that none of them hit the US.

Your chart about Greenland seems to prove you correct, however I have no report on who measured the mass of the ice sheet, and how they measured it.

NASA, with highly accurate infrared-interferometry satellites. They can measure the thickness of the ice sheets to a fraction of an inch, from space.

but are you spinning on purpose or is it just your nature...honestly...

There's no spin, Game, just science. And the science on this issue is very clear - global warming is occuring, and it's predominantly man-made. That's the conclusion of the overwhelming consensus of scientists. The very few who disagree are shills and cranks.

There's definitely nothing sacred about government money that leaves people in a state of grace.

I'm not saying there is, but there's definately something about no-questions-asked consulting "fees" that makes scientists fall from grace.

But I really don't see any argument in your post that isn't just calling me a "marxist" and assuming that's sufficient to refute my argument. I guess you're another one who resorts to ad hominem when you can't address arguments in a substantive way.

No thought required!

Certainly none is required to just call your opponent a "marxist" and act like you've refuted his argument. I'd ask you to try a little harder next time, ok? You seem like the one person here with the ability to rise above playground antics.

If money determined all, those getting government money are the same situation-- disagree with the government bureaucrats in charge, and you'll see your funding cut.

The guy in charge is George Bush, who is a shill for oil companies. His administration has attempted to subvert the science on global warming for years.

So pretty clearly what you describe is not the case, here. If scientists were simply deferring to their government masters, as the oil shills are, there'd be no evidence pointing to global warming at all.

The government funding process is designed to insulate science from the biases of policy makers (Bush's attempts to destroy that insulation notwithstanding.) That's just not the case with big oil company checks.

It's not just "money". It's about how the money is paid and who's paying it. Getting money from the government to do research isn't at all like getting paid by an oil company to shill.