Gulf Of Thailand Won't Rise With Global Warming, Expert Claims

[Canadianvisitor]

I am having a good laugh at the premise that global warming, climate change, etc. is actually being debated.

It is very much like "The Earth is flat", the dummy who keeps trying to dispute it is probably some right wing

freak with a computer and no political influence.

It's kind of funny really, people are sort of saying "I vote right wing, therefore climate change is a lie"

"Take me to your leader, you need tax cuts."

"The Earth is flat"

"Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and so does Iran."

"The left all eat granola, and are all on welfare"

The right wing must kill.

There is no argument fool.

The Earth is round, I've seen pictures!

Edited June 16, 2008 by Canadianvisitor

[OlRedEyes]

A little snapshot. Make of it what you will.

Arrived in Johannesburg, after an absence of 5 years, mid/latish summer. It is now a few days before mid-winter. I lived in Jhb for some 20 years before I left.

Summer was a lot cooler than I have ever experienced it before. That may have been my perception due to my spending 5 yrs in Thailand. The rainfall pattern had changed though. Jhb is a summer rainfall area, with regular thunderstorms most afternoons lasting maybe an hour or two, then it would clear. This year we had days, sometimes a week, of continues soft rain/drizzle. My daughter tells me that this has been happening for at least the last 3 years now. NEVER seen it before here. Even she commented how cold it was in January - high summer.

Winter in JHB is dry and cold. Sunny days and no rain. Grass and plants die back. Frost in the mornings.

Right now, the grass is green (not watered), had to mow it yesterday!!!. The roses are still in bloom, there are actually new buds forming (mid winter??). Have had many days of rain, on and off.

In all the years I lived here, I have never seen anything like it.

Something I noticed before I left 5 years ago is that the regular August wind was starting to shift to later in the year. Now I'm told this clockwork 'wind of change' has disappeared altogether, being replaced by year-round windiness, more gentle.

[Canadianvisitor]

The change in the weather patterns has everything to do with the ocean temperature.

It is going to be a wild ride, I read an article just published that said that due to the retreat of Arctic

ice in the Northwest passage, (north of the Canadian mainland) they have deduced the models of

actual change could possibly now be thirty years too slow.

So uh this 2050 turns into 2020 etcetera etcetera etcetera.

[ThaiAdventure]

A little snapshot. Make of it what you will.

Arrived in Johannesburg, after an absence of 5 years, mid/latish summer. It is now a few days before mid-winter. I lived in Jhb for some 20 years before I left.

Summer was a lot cooler than I have ever experienced it before. That may have been my perception due to my spending 5 yrs in Thailand. The rainfall pattern had changed though. Jhb is a summer rainfall area, with regular thunderstorms most afternoons lasting maybe an hour or two, then it would clear. This year we had days, sometimes a week, of continues soft rain/drizzle. My daughter tells me that this has been happening for at least the last 3 years now. NEVER seen it before here. Even she commented how cold it was in January - high summer.

Winter in JHB is dry and cold. Sunny days and no rain. Grass and plants die back. Frost in the mornings.

Right now, the grass is green (not watered), had to mow it yesterday!!!. The roses are still in bloom, there are actually new buds forming (mid winter??). Have had many days of rain, on and off.

In all the years I lived here, I have never seen anything like it.

Something I noticed before I left 5 years ago is that the regular August wind was starting to shift to later in the year. Now I'm told this clockwork 'wind of change' has disappeared altogether, being replaced by year-round windiness, more gentle.

Indeed. The Southern hemisphere does seem to be undergoing change.

I found this (from 2007) whilst looking into possible reasons..Perhaps you can elaborate from personal experience (or those of family and friends). Not knowing diddley squat about the SA climate, (I thought it was scorching all year round ). What are the general seasonal climates?

A rare winter snowstorm dusted South Africa’s commercial capital Johannesburg early on Wednesday June 26 closing mountain passes and claiming at least one life. ‘SNOWBURG’ trumpeted the headline of Johannesburg’s Star newspaper. Gleeful children built snowmen in Johannesburg’s Zoo Lake Park, while families could be seen carrying snowballs back to their cars, fast melting souvenirs of the city’s first significant snowfall, the first real snowfall in more than a generation.

Full Article

[canuckamuck]

I am having a good laugh at the premise that global warming, climate change, etc. is actually being debated.

It is very much like "The Earth is flat", the dummy who keeps trying to dispute it is probably some right wing

freak with a computer and no political influence.

It's kind of funny really, people are sort of saying "I vote right wing, therefore climate change is a lie"

"Take me to your leader, you need tax cuts."

"The Earth is flat"

"Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and so does Iran."

"The left all eat granola, and are all on welfare"

The right wing must kill.

There is no argument fool.

The Earth is round, I've seen pictures!

[plachon]

It may not seem much, but remember he was only studying the Greenland Ice Sheet. Not Antartica, Arctic ice sheets and other contributing factors to sea-level rise. The underlying message I gained is that the accepted models being used by the IPCC are on the conservative side and need to be continually updated with the evidence provided by new peer-review studies in respected scientific journals (not planted right-wing, enviro-sceptic opinion posing as "fact" in blogs and rags picked up by folks who want to hear AGW is all a lefty plot designed to take the tax out of ordinary folk's pockets). Read back on this thread and you'll soon see the kind of person who has to resort to "koolaid" and "Fat Al Gore" jibes to make their point is your main, vocifereous little band of supporters.

So put forward a cohesive arguement instead of rhetoric.

That would be "rhetoric" as in, "noun 1 The art of speaking or writing effectively;" I guess?

There is absolutely no point in me trying to rationally explain to you "Why the earth's climate is changing and getting warmer as a result of human activities, especially emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases", as I and others have pointed that this is no longer an issue of contention amongst the majority of the world's governments and the scientific establishment. It would be as pointless as arguing about the scientific basis for the earth being round, gravity or evolution.

However, I have been putting forward an argument against the confusion, junk science and irrational beliefs put forward by the AGW-sceptics who feel the need to tell us that they have troubles accepting the damage that man is having on this planet and the need to do something about it, which certainly means fundamental changes in consumerist lifestyles, higher taxes to pay for damage already done and the costs of future mitigation against impacts, plus internationally binding agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, amongst other urgent measures, currently being debated. Whether, it has been "cohesive" or not, I am not the one to judge.

[Robski]

Giant Antarctic ice shelf breaks into the sea.

This article was first published on guardian.co.uk on Wednesday March 26 2008.

Article and video here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008...oles.antarctica

A vast hunk of floating ice has broken away from the Antarctic peninsula, threatening the collapse of a much larger ice shelf behind it, in a development that has shocked climate scientists.

Satellite images show that about 160 square miles of the Wilkins ice shelf has been lost since the end of February, leaving the ice interior now "hanging by a thread".

The collapsing shelf suggests that climate change could be forcing change much more quickly than scientists had predicted.

"The ice shelf is hanging by a thread," said Professor David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey (BAS). "We'll know in the next few days or weeks what its fate will be."

The Wilkins shelf covers an area of 5,600 square miles (14,500 sq km). It is now protected by just a thin thread of ice between two islands.

Vaughan was a member of the team that predicted in 1993 that global warming could cause the Wilkins shelf to collapse within 30 years.

The shedding of peripheral floating ice shelves has occurred elsewhere on the peninsula, allowing inland ice to move towards the sea and cause rising sea levels.

Some areas of the frozen continent have been cooler in recent years, and have added ice through accumulated snowfall. This year, the thin floating layer of sea ice that forms each austral winter and fades in summer has in fact been larger than usual, in contrast to the Arctic.

But in other parts — such as the West Antarctic ice sheet — ice is being lost to the sea.

The darker area shows the chunk that has broken away. Picture: Nasa Climate scientists around Antarctica were taken by surprise by the new find. "Wilkins is the largest ice shelf on the Antarctic peninsula yet to be threatened," Vaughan said.

"I didn't expect to see things happen this quickly. We predicted it would happen, but it's happened twice as fast as we predicted."

The retreat of the shelf was first spotted from satellite data by Ted Scambos, a glaciologist at the University of Colorado.

He alerted the BAS, which sent an aircraft to assess the extent of the damage.

Jim Elliott, who filmed part of the breakup, said: "It was awesome. We flew along the main crack and observed the sheer scale of movement from the breakage. Big chunks of ice, the size of small houses, look as though they've been thrown around like rubble — it's like an explosion."

The Antarctic peninsula, which stretches north from the frozen continent towards South America, has experienced unprecedented warming over the past 50 years.

Six other ice shelves have already been lost entirely — the Prince Gustav Channel, Larsen Inlet, Larsen B, Wordie, Muller and Jones shelves.

But the Wilkins shelf is farther south than other ice that has retreated, so should be better protected by colder temperatures.

Vaughan said: "It's bigger than any ice shelf we've seen retreating before, and in the long term it could be a taste of other things to come. It is another indication of the impact that climate change is having on the region."

[Khun Jean]

Like a small icecube when compared to the total volume of ice. It is 0.00415% of the total when measured in two dimensions. When thickness is calculated this small percentage gets very low. More like 0.0000001%. But i admit it is a little rough estimate, it could be as much as 0.0000002. Those dam_n margins of error.

And that is the one that is 1500 years old. Question remains why was there no ice in that particular place 1500 years ago. Was it warmer? Also caused by humans? Co2? Pinguins farting to much.

In the meantime 'the next few days' are already long gone. And..... nothing happened.

Edited June 17, 2008 by Khun Jean

[Robski]

I think you're a little confused over timescale and location. Antartica covers the South Pole and Greenland is of course in the Northern Hemisphere.

Although there were parts of southern Greenland that were comparitively mild around 1500 years ago, it was only a small percentage of the total landmass and confined to a few sheltered enclaves. You can find a facinating, if somewhat dry, account of the Viking settlement there and it's subsequent collapse in Jared Diamonds book - Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Viking Books. ISBN 1-586-63863-7

It was a combination of cultural and enviromental factors that caused the Viking society there to collapse, but the changing enviroment was key.

I'm sure you can find other sources of information regarding the climate change in Greenland at that time, but I'm sure you will find that it only covered a very small area of Greenlands vast land mass.

Good luck.

[plachon]

I think you're a little confused over timescale and location. Antartica covers the South Pole and Greenland is of course in the Northern Hemisphere.

Although there were parts of southern Greenland that were comparitively mild around 1500 years ago, it was only a small percentage of the total landmass and confined to a few sheltered enclaves. You can find a facinating, if somewhat dry, account of the Viking settlement there and it's subsequent collapse in Jared Diamonds book - Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Viking Books. ISBN 1-586-63863-7

It was a combination of cultural and enviromental factors that caused the Viking society there to collapse, but the changing enviroment was key.

I'm sure you can find other sources of information regarding the climate change in Greenland at that time, but I'm sure you will find that it only covered a very small area of Greenlands vast land mass.

Good luck.

I think he's more than a little confused over a lot of things, looking back over his muddled contributions to this thread.

The notion that people are denying natural swings in climate and temperature over time as proof against AGW is laughable, and illustrates the shaky basis for any of Jean's arguments. So, especially for him, here is a potted history of Greenland's climate since about 500 AD to present from Wikipedia. Yes, there have been warmer periods and cooler periods. Nobody doubts this. The point is that the experts who study these things have now confirmed that the present upswing has little to do with natural causes and everything to do with anthropogenic pollution, especially CO2 emissions. Period.

[edit] The demise of the Greenland Norse settlements

A graphical description of changes in temperature in Greenland from 500 – 1990 A.D. based on analysis of the deep ice core from Greenland and some historical events. The annual temperature changes are shown vertical in ˚C. The numbers are to be read horizontal:

1. From 700 to 750 A.D. people belonging to the Late Dorset Culture move into the area around Smith Sound, Ellesmere Island and Greenland north of Thule.

2. Norse settlement of Iceland starts in the second half of the 9th century.

3. Norse settlement of Greenland starts just before the year 1000.

4. Thule Inuit move into northern Greenland in the 12th century.

5. Late Dorset culture disappears from Greenland in the second half of the 13th century.

6. The Western Settlement disappears in mid 14th century.

7. In 1408 is the Marriage in Hvalsey, the last known written document on the Norse in Greenland.

8. The Eastern Settlement disappears in mid 15th century.

9. John Cabot is the first European in the post-Iceland era to visit Labrador - Newfoundland in 1497.

10. “Little Ice Age” from ca 1600 to mid 18th century.

11.The Danish-Norwegian priest, Hans Egede, arrives in Greenland in 1721.

And I'm really glad you picked up on Jared Diamond's excellent book "Collapse" as this demonstrates very clearly how human's have been screwing up thier environment and making it literally uninhabitable in some cases for many centuries. What has changed in the 20th century is that now we have the ability to make the same mistakes on a global level, with far more insiduous and rapid efficiency, thanks to our addiction to fossil fuels. This stuff is not some fantasy dreamed up by tax collector's, lefties and "greenies", but in your face evidential-based science, if you have a mind open enough to join the dots and make the links.

While I'm thinking about it, perhaps Jean could provide some evidence for the link between the etymology for Finland and vines, as I haven't been able to.

[Khun Jean]

The 1500 years is about the wilkinson ice sheet. It was not there 1500 years ago. Large chunks of ice falling into the sea happenes all the time. Did people realize that under antartica there is active vulcanisme. So many factors are at play that scientist are trying to understand.

I am not arguing global warming/cooling climate change.

I just say it is not by human activity. Thats all.

And as i said before, why is it that in the last 10 years the earth is not warming? Surely that would not be the case when the cause was human activity. Because pollution and CO2 levels are higher then 10 years ago.

Something else is at play.

And why call my text confused and shaky. It is all based on MEASUREMENTS instead of predictions and theories.

[apetley]

And what about GREENland (Green for gras) and FINland (Fin for wine). These names already suggest a much warmer climate a very long time ago.

The name Greenland was a shameful attempt to get the country colonised by Norse settlers simply by giving it a good name.

Finland probably derives from a Germanic word, 'finnr', meaning wanderer and was applied to the nomadic farmers who occupied alot of the area now known as Finland.

[ThaiAdventure]

OK. Now we are playing nicely instead of politcal lambasting I'll address some your points

There is absolutely no point in me trying to rationally explain to you "Why the earth's climate is changing and getting warmer as a result of human activities, especially emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases", as I and others have pointed that this is no longer an issue of contention amongst the majority of the world's governments and the scientific establishment. It would be as pointless as arguing about the scientific basis for the earth being round, gravity or evolution.

I disagree and so do 400 odd scientists.

US Senate Report

IPCC Scientist Calls Global Warming Fears the Worst Scientific Scandal in History

I particularly liked the story in the latter one about the Spaniards sueing Greenpeace

And as I have been saying all along

Don't Fight, Adapt

Edited June 18, 2008 by ThaiAdventure

[Robski]

Right Side News.. Marc Morano.. James Spann the weatherman. Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

Next you'll be telling me Rush Limbaugh told you it's true.

Before leaving CNS, Morano wrote an article featuring attacks on NASA global warming scientist James E. Hansen by George C. Deutsch, a former NASA press aide accused of censoring Hansen. [3]

Morano was hired in Spring 2006 as the Director of Communications to US Senator James Inhofe (R-OK). Senator Inhofe is a member and the former Chair of the Senate Committee for the Environment and Public Works, and has compared Tom Brokaw's climate change documentary to the "Big Lie," a Third Reich propaganda technique. Inhofe also claimed that "if we were to embrace the Kyoto treaty [on climate change], it would shut down agriculture, military and oil production in Oklahoma..." [4]

Many believe that is it Morano who has been behind Inhofe's latest attacks on the science of climate change [5], and this was confirmed by an appearance of Morano at the 2006 Society of Environmental Journalists, where Morano was on a climate change panel with Andrew Revkin (New York Times) and Bill Blakemore (ABC News). [6]

An August 2007 entry by Morano on Inhofe's EPW Committee blog claimed that "proponents of man-made global warming have been funded to the tune of $50 BILLION in the last decade or so, but the Magazine chose instead to focus on how skeptics have reportedly received a paltry $19 MILLION from ExxonMobil over the last two decades."[7] Morano offered no documentation to support the "$50 BILLION" claim, and cited only one figure to support the "$19 MILLION" claim -- a statement that "skeptics have reportedly received a paltry $19 MILLION from ExxonMobil over the last two decades," falsely suggesting that ExxonMobil was the only source of funding for global warming "skeptics."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano

Edited June 18, 2008 by Robski

[Khun Jean]

And what about GREENland (Green for gras) and FINland (Fin for wine). These names already suggest a much warmer climate a very long time ago.

The name Greenland was a shameful attempt to get the country colonised by Norse settlers simply by giving it a good name.

Finland probably derives from a Germanic word, 'finnr', meaning wanderer and was applied to the nomadic farmers who occupied alot of the area now known as Finland.

Thank you for this.

I did not know about this explanation.

[plachon]

And what about GREENland (Green for gras) and FINland (Fin for wine). These names already suggest a much warmer climate a very long time ago.

The name Greenland was a shameful attempt to get the country colonised by Norse settlers simply by giving it a good name.

Finland probably derives from a Germanic word, 'finnr', meaning wanderer and was applied to the nomadic farmers who occupied alot of the area now known as Finland.

Thank you for this.

I did not know about this explanation.

Hey, but I thought your sound ideas were all based on "MEASUREMENTS" Jean?

You'll have to start a Dave Barry like "I swear I'm not making this all up" before each sentence in future.

[LaoPo]

And what about GREENland (Green for gras) and FINland (Fin for wine). These names already suggest a much warmer climate a very long time ago.

The name Greenland was a shameful attempt to get the country colonised by Norse settlers simply by giving it a good name.

Finland probably derives from a Germanic word, 'finnr', meaning wanderer and was applied to the nomadic farmers who occupied alot of the area now known as Finland.

Thank you for this.

I did not know about this explanation.

Etymology

Green + Land (The origin of the "green" in "Greenland" is disputed; Icelandic saga says that the island was so named by Eric the Red to make the island sound more pleasant than it was in order to lure potential settlers away from Iceland, or that it was much greener in his day; it is also said that his family came from Grønland in Norway, and that he had traveled from a poor, black-stoned field in his homeland to large green meadows in Greenland)

From: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/greenland

AND:

Etymology

The name Greenland comes from Scandinavian settlers. In the Icelandic sagas, it is said that Norwegian-born Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder. He, along with his extended family and thralls, set out in ships to find the land that was rumoured to be to the northwest. After settling there, he named the land Grænland ("Greenland"), possibly in order to attract more people to settle there.[6] Greenland was also called Gruntland ("Ground-land") and Engronelant (or Engroneland) on early maps. Whether green is an erroneous transcription of grunt ("ground"), which refers to shallow bays, or vice versa, is not known. It should also be noted, however, that the southern portion of Greenland (not covered by glacier) is indeed very green in the summer and was likely to have been even greener in Erik's time because of the Medieval Warm Period.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland#Etymology

One does learn a lot, visiting TV, don't we ?

LaoPo

[ThaiAdventure]

Right Side News.. Marc Morano.. James Spann the weatherman. Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

Next you'll be telling me Rush Limbaugh told you it's true.

Nope. Can't see that name in this list of signatories.

The following are signatories to the Dec. 13th letter to the Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali:

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia

William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg

Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany

Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal

Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.

Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin

Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta

R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand

David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma

Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University

Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia

Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands

Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario

David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of ‘Science Speak,' Australia

William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame

Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia

R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa

Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany

Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay

Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden

Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project

Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut

Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia

Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona

Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA

Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis

Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia

Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia

Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia

David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand

Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007

William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands

Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands

The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.

Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware

Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand

William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.

Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors

Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia

Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia

Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany

John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand

Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.

Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph

John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia

Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand

Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University

Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University

Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia

Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden

Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia

David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University

Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia

Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University

Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota

Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan

Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences

Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force

R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology

Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.

Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway

Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA

S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service

L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario

Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden

Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC

Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia

Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia

Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany

Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia

Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia

A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy

Once again you have latched on to a single political point that you feel validates your moral high ground. It's very similar to the cries of "Communist" as counter arguements used in the 1970's. I really thought you were beginning to engage

[Khun Jean]

And what about GREENland (Green for gras) and FINland (Fin for wine). These names already suggest a much warmer climate a very long time ago.

The name Greenland was a shameful attempt to get the country colonised by Norse settlers simply by giving it a good name.

Finland probably derives from a Germanic word, 'finnr', meaning wanderer and was applied to the nomadic farmers who occupied alot of the area now known as Finland.

Thank you for this.

I did not know about this explanation.

Hey, but I thought your sound ideas were all based on "MEASUREMENTS" Jean?

You'll have to start a Dave Barry like "I swear I'm not making this all up" before each sentence in future.

That is why i used the word "suggests". Because for me it was not a 100% sure fact.

Orther facts like meaurements taken by NASA, but yeah who are they, just a bunch of clowns anyway.

Growing icesheets instead of shrinking is measured? Why not accept that?

Not warming up in the last ten years is measured? Why not accept that?

Rising co2 levels and no rise in temperature. Both measured. Why not accept that?

Because they are false? Or less trustworthy than a theorie and a model?

And then someone tells me i am making things up. Different universes we live in probably.

[ace]

Re: Greenland.

Just wanted to point out that although the source of the name might be disputed, there was a medieval warm period (and after that a little ice age). That is undisputed fact.

[Robski]

Right Side News.. Marc Morano.. James Spann the weatherman. Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

Next you'll be telling me Rush Limbaugh told you it's true.

Nope. Can't see that name in this list of signatories.

Once again you have latched on to a single political point that you feel validates your moral high ground. It's very similar to the cries of "Communist" as counter arguements used in the 1970's. I really thought you were beginning to engage

You feel that my critisism is unwarranted and unconstructive, but you have to think outside the box.

Yes I saw the list of signitories, but the arcticle was authored by a well known and unreliable pro industrial ideologue for a Right wing publication, with articles furnished by other proponents and beneficiaries of the industrial political complex. By the time I'd read (most of) the articles and checked their sources my belief in the credibility of the signitories was already waning.

We are intelligent people are we not? If we are, why are you presenting this material, with an obvious bias, as impartial and unequivocal?

I'm not claiming any moral highground, but I will claim the intellectual highground as it is clearly there for the taking.

I think you would take great benefit from broadening your political and educational horizons.

I have no particular political leanings. I just believe that anything presented as the truth should be as impartial and transparent as possible.

Good luck.

[Robski]

Re: Greenland.

Just wanted to point out that although the source of the name might be disputed, there was a medieval warm period (and after that a little ice age). That is undisputed fact.

Hey Ace, how you doing? Long time no see.

Yes you're absolutely right there was a period of warming and more of the Greenland land mass was able to be inhabitited, but it was only in the very south of the continent and the rest still remained locked in ice.

Anyway that reminds me, we must get together for a few ice cold beers sometime soon.

[plachon]

And what about GREENland (Green for gras) and FINland (Fin for wine). These names already suggest a much warmer climate a very long time ago.

The name Greenland was a shameful attempt to get the country colonised by Norse settlers simply by giving it a good name.

Finland probably derives from a Germanic word, 'finnr', meaning wanderer and was applied to the nomadic farmers who occupied alot of the area now known as Finland.

Thank you for this.

I did not know about this explanation.

Hey, but I thought your sound ideas were all based on "MEASUREMENTS" Jean?

You'll have to start a Dave Barry like "I swear I'm not making this all up" before each sentence in future.

That is why i used the word "suggests". Because for me it was not a 100% sure fact.

Orther facts like meaurements taken by NASA, but yeah who are they, just a bunch of clowns anyway.

Growing icesheets instead of shrinking is measured? Why not accept that?

Not warming up in the last ten years is measured? Why not accept that?

Rising co2 levels and no rise in temperature. Both measured. Why not accept that?

Because they are false? Or less trustworthy than a theorie and a model?

And then someone tells me i am making things up. Different universes we live in probably.

I don't know which NASA you're talking about, but the one that maintains the Goddard Space Flight Centre certainly does not agree with any of your beliefs. I've just been on NASA's website to check it out and invite other's to do so, just to reassure yourselves that KJ really does live in a different universe from the rest of us.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/eartha...ate_change.html

Very interesting the bit about the minimum concentration of Arctic sea ice recorded occuring in Sept 2005 (how many years ago?) and "...based on data from 1983-2003, the surface warming trends in the Arctic have been 8 times greater than trends over the past 100 years...."

You're a fraud Khun Jean (or more likely, a deluded victim of one).

[ThaiAdventure]

You feel that my critisism is unwarranted and unconstructive, but you have to think outside the box.

Yes I saw the list of signitories, but the arcticle was authored by a well known and unreliable pro industrial ideologue for a Right wing publication, with articles furnished by other proponents and beneficiaries of the industrial political complex. By the time I'd read (most of) the articles and checked their sources my belief in the credibility of the signitories was already waning.

We are intelligent people are we not? If we are, why are you presenting this material, with an obvious bias, as impartial and unequivocal?

I'm not claiming any moral highground, but I will claim the intellectual highground as it is clearly there for the taking.

I think you would take great benefit from broadening your political and educational horizons.

I have no particular political leanings. I just believe that anything presented as the truth should be as impartial and transparent as possible.

Good luck.

To me (refering to the political justification of the source information) is like you are saying you not accepting an arguement because they are a Muslim or Jewish or anything but your own persuasion. It IS uncontructive and irrelevent on this thread.

I'm not a politcal animal and as I have said previously, I read an article and appraise it on it's content (left, wing, right wing or outside on the aeroplane wing) and point blank refuse to be drawn on political issues. If you have an opinion backed up by mathematical, data or historical information/references then by all means post and I will (probably) respond. But harping on about politics just bores me silly.

The previous reply to Plachon was to point out that (contrary to his sweeping statement which was proffered with no evidence) the issue is still in contention by the scientific community and I backed this up with some evidence of the dischord. Nothing more, nothing less. The following quote seems to sum up your reaction quite nicely.

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

(Earnest Benn)

Well thats about as much of a response as any politcal replys are going to get. On to some data

Seems that quite a bit of research has been done on Grrenland.

Grrenland

The Greenland surface air temperature trends over the past 50 years do not show

persistent warming, in contrast to global average surface air temperatures. The

Greenland coastal stations temperature trends over the second half of the past

century generally exhibit a cooling tendency with superimposed decadal scale oscillations

related to the NAO. At the Greenland ice sheet summit, the temperature

record shows a decrease in the summer average temperature at the rate of about

2.2 ◦C/decade, suggesting that the Greenland ice sheet at high elevations does not

follow the global warming trend either.

A significant and rapid temperature increase was observed at all Greenland

stations between 1920 and 1930. The average annual temperature rose between

2 and 4◦C in less than ten years. Since the change in anthropogenic production

of greenhouses gases at that time was considerably lower than today, this rapid

temperature increase suggests a large natural variability of the regional climate.

High anticorrelations (r = −0.84 to −0.93) between the NAO index and the

Greenland temperature records suggest a physical link between these processes.

The recent negative shift of the NAO correlates with 1990s warming in Greenland.

The NAOmay play a crucial role in determining local Greenland climate during the

21st century; resulting in a local climate that may defy the global climate change.

This possibility should be considered in models of ice sheet melt and future sea

level rise. Forecasting changes in the NAO may be a primary factor in predicting

the future Greenland ice sheet mass balance.

Edited June 20, 2008 by ThaiAdventure

[Khun Jean]

And what about GREENland (Green for gras) and FINland (Fin for wine). These names already suggest a much warmer climate a very long time ago.

The name Greenland was a shameful attempt to get the country colonised by Norse settlers simply by giving it a good name.

Finland probably derives from a Germanic word, 'finnr', meaning wanderer and was applied to the nomadic farmers who occupied alot of the area now known as Finland.

Thank you for this.

I did not know about this explanation.

Hey, but I thought your sound ideas were all based on "MEASUREMENTS" Jean?

You'll have to start a Dave Barry like "I swear I'm not making this all up" before each sentence in future.

That is why i used the word "suggests". Because for me it was not a 100% sure fact.

Orther facts like meaurements taken by NASA, but yeah who are they, just a bunch of clowns anyway.

Growing icesheets instead of shrinking is measured? Why not accept that?

Not warming up in the last ten years is measured? Why not accept that?

Rising co2 levels and no rise in temperature. Both measured. Why not accept that?

Because they are false? Or less trustworthy than a theorie and a model?

And then someone tells me i am making things up. Different universes we live in probably.

I don't know which NASA you're talking about, but the one that maintains the Goddard Space Flight Centre certainly does not agree with any of your beliefs. I've just been on NASA's website to check it out and invite other's to do so, just to reassure yourselves that KJ really does live in a different universe from the rest of us.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/eartha...ate_change.html

Very interesting the bit about the minimum concentration of Arctic sea ice recorded occuring in Sept 2005 (how many years ago?) and "...based on data from 1983-2003, the surface warming trends in the Arctic have been 8 times greater than trends over the past 100 years...."

You're a fraud Khun Jean (or more likely, a deluded victim of one).

Please continue your research, you missed quit a bit.

Concentrate on recent satelite measurements.

[Robski]

To me (refering to the political justification of the source information) is like you are saying you not accepting an arguement because they are a Muslim or Jewish or anything but your own persuasion. It IS uncontructive and irrelevent on this thread.

Blah de blah de blah...

Ok so we've established that you take things on face value, otherwise you've just avoided the point altogether.

It is nothing like saying they are Muslim or Jewish and I think you know that.

A quote from Earnest Bean isn't going to detract form the fact that global warming has become one of the most politicized issues today.

To claim that politics has no bearing and is unconstructive is rather disengenious as you are the one linking articles from politcal publications and purporting them to be fact.

Edited June 20, 2008 by Robski

[plachon]

And what about GREENland (Green for gras) and FINland (Fin for wine). These names already suggest a much warmer climate a very long time ago.

The name Greenland was a shameful attempt to get the country colonised by Norse settlers simply by giving it a good name.

Finland probably derives from a Germanic word, 'finnr', meaning wanderer and was applied to the nomadic farmers who occupied alot of the area now known as Finland.

Thank you for this.

I did not know about this explanation.

Hey, but I thought your sound ideas were all based on "MEASUREMENTS" Jean?

You'll have to start a Dave Barry like "I swear I'm not making this all up" before each sentence in future.

That is why i used the word "suggests". Because for me it was not a 100% sure fact.

Orther facts like meaurements taken by NASA, but yeah who are they, just a bunch of clowns anyway.

Growing icesheets instead of shrinking is measured? Why not accept that?

Not warming up in the last ten years is measured? Why not accept that?

Rising co2 levels and no rise in temperature. Both measured. Why not accept that?

Because they are false? Or less trustworthy than a theorie and a model?

And then someone tells me i am making things up. Different universes we live in probably.

I don't know which NASA you're talking about, but the one that maintains the Goddard Space Flight Centre certainly does not agree with any of your beliefs. I've just been on NASA's website to check it out and invite other's to do so, just to reassure yourselves that KJ really does live in a different universe from the rest of us.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/eartha...ate_change.html

Very interesting the bit about the minimum concentration of Arctic sea ice recorded occuring in Sept 2005 (how many years ago?) and "...based on data from 1983-2003, the surface warming trends in the Arctic have been 8 times greater than trends over the past 100 years...."

You're a fraud Khun Jean (or more likely, a deluded victim of one).

Please continue your research, you missed quit a bit.

Concentrate on recent satelite measurements.

I think it is you who now have the onus to back up your 3 claims with proof from NASA "measurements".

We have:

1. Growing ice sheets instead of shrinking

2. Not warming up in the last 10 years

3. Rising CO2 levels but no rise in temperature.

It took only a few minutes of my time to see that their research refutes your claims, so now go ahead and prove me and NASA wrong. Shouldn't be hard, as you're the man with the "MEASUREMENTS" remember.

PS I'll let you off the Greenland and Finland claims as childish bravado in the heat of the moment.

[Galong]

Hey all,

I don't know why I haven't been getting notices that folks were still, um, debating on this thread. I've had a lot of catching up to do.

I've come to a conclusion that I hope many would agree makes sense:

1. Global temperatures rise and fall and historically it's had little/nothing to do with human activities

2. There are 'scientists' on both sides who have very convincing evidence and both sides stand to benefit (perhaps financially) from proving their argument.

3. We're polluting the earth and all of the fossil fuel burning has to have some effect, whether it is sufficient to cause global warming is up for debate.

4. Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics... even if you win, you're still retarded.

In my opinion, the biggest problem that the earth faces is over-population.

Peace!

[ThaiAdventure]

4. Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics... even if you win, you're still retarded.

[plachon]

Hey all,

I don't know why I haven't been getting notices that folks were still, um, debating on this thread. I've had a lot of catching up to do.

I've come to a conclusion that I hope many would agree makes sense:

1. Global temperatures rise and fall and historically it's had little/nothing to do with human activities

2. There are 'scientists' on both sides who have very convincing evidence and both sides stand to benefit (perhaps financially) from proving their argument.

3. We're polluting the earth and all of the fossil fuel burning has to have some effect, whether it is sufficient to cause global warming is up for debate.

4. Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics... even if you win, you're still retarded.

In my opinion, the biggest problem that the earth faces is over-population.

Peace!

In just one sentence you manage to insult everyone who has ever put forward an opinion or entered into a debate on the Net AND every disabled sportsperson who has ever aspired to compete in the Special Olympics. Nice one Galong.

But you luckily save yourself from total disgrace, by confirming in the next sentence that indeed you too are a frickin' retard by putting forward your opinion on the old "over-population" chestnut, which is a quite separate issue (but still serious) from climate change.

Just to keep this thread on-topic and not wander off down the lane of who's the bigger retard, here is the latest assessment on the rate of global ocean warming and sea level rises being 50 % faster than predicted by IPCC's 2007 report, by Australia's CSIRO and two other respected institutions recently reported in Nature. Personally, I think anyone who sits on the fence over this issue or doubts its implications to humanity is also rather retarded, but I'll keep posting the evidence anyways.

http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/37443