Meanwhile, In Vancouver…

Meanwhile, In Vancouver…


So, looks like Drudge and the right wing blogosphere focused on the snowfall in D.C. to claim that global warming is a hoax.

Only problem…they’re completely ignoring that the success of the winter Olympics is in jeopardy because…get ready for it…there is no snow!

Let’s run down some of the headlines…

Olympics: Helicopters and trucks bring snow to Cypress

A clattering helicopter and a rumbling truck dumped snow on Cypress Mountain, the warm weather-plagued venue where the first Winter Olympic event is just four days away.

Olympic organizers opened parts of the mountain to media for the first time Tuesday, showing off a snow-covered moguls course with a big patches of dirt on either side. The snowboard halfpipe remained off limits.

Vancouver: Record-warm January…February frost?

VANCOUVER — In light of recent news of a Pineapple Express in Greater Vancouver and a shortage of snow at Cypress Mountain, it comes as little surprise that this January will go down as the warmest in Vancouver history. The 44.8-degree 31-day average easily eclipsed the previous mark of 43.3, set in 2006. Since record-keeping began in 1937, the January average had been 37.9.

Meteorologists attributed the warm weather to an El Niño — a predictable flow of warm, moist tropical air from the equatorial Pacific — but admitted that their projections underestimated the pattern’s effect. The temperature dipped below freezing on just two days — about ten fewer than normal — and led to some unusual sights: the local newspaper of Cloverdale, a Vancouver suburb, ran a photo of violet crocuses in full bloom.

IOC: Global Warming Could Affect Winter Olympics

President of IOC, Jacques Rogge, told AFP the issue had been discussed during a meeting on Monday ahead of the Winter Olympics, which begin on February 12. The highlight of the meeting was over Cypress Mountain, near Vancouver, where the games will be held. […]

“Global warming of course is a worry,” Rogge said. “It might affect, in the long-term, the staging of Winter Games but I can tell you that today in the evaluation committee meeting we asked for statistics.” Looking for reports of what snow conditions are like in particular resorts for future venues is a must, but, this of course is no guarantee either, he added.

“Global warming is definitely a factor that must be taken into account in Olympic preparations,” noted Rogge. In the future, global warming will be a key issue when determining which cities will host Olympic Games. “In awarding the event to a host city, we must look at the climate and snow conditions and geography, as well as ways to alleviate any lack of snow.”

And…from the hometown paper…

Welcome to the global warming games. (This is no snow job)

Hello, world!

And welcome to the 2010 Olympic Winter Games, or as we like to call it here in Vancouver, spring!

As part of our Olympic mandate, we, the people of Vancouver, vowed that when we first won the right to host the Games we would make them the most environmentally responsible in Olympic history. Here in the birthplace of Greenpeace, the 100-Mile Diet and the wool-socks-with-sandals look, we have not only endeavoured to make these, literally, the Greenest Games ever, we have succeeded beyond our wildest dreams!

As you can see, we’ve gone a little overboard.

You’re probably wondering where the snow is.

Thankfully this will be on full display for all of the world (and doubters) to see in short order.

  • SpkTruth2Pwr

    Thank you! But no matter how many times you say it, some people just cannot make the connection that global warming is only a subset of the CLIMATE CHANGE debate. Global warming has found interesting trends overall in the average temperatures across the globe year after year, but it is a part of the phenomenon of climate change that is a byproduct of human development on the planet. It amazes me how some people make a point out of such a small sliver of information.

  • Chris

    The problem is the naming of the theory, they should’ve just called it climate change, then every time it’s colder than usual the wingers wouldn’t be smirking to themselves and talking about how they’re smarter than them scientists.

  • kranky kritter

    Now that’s what I call conclusive groof, one warm winter in Vancouver. Let’s all trade anecdotes.

  • David

    But wait! other researchers are saying that global warming CAUSES blizzards!

    So here we have a theory which is validated when an event happens and when it doesn’t happen – who needs falsifiability anyway?

  • Trescml

    The bigger problem is that many people won’t be persuaded one way or another short of an ice age or Dante’s inferno. Global warming is not about data, but rather about politics. Using single pieces of data is so much easier to prove a point that an honest long term analysis and is far less taxing on brain cells.

    Though for the record I would be more that happy to ship my DC snow to Vancouver to help their cause.

  • Doomed

    Meanwhile while the wingers are talking about the record snow fall in DC………the other set of wingers are talking about the warm season in Vancouver.

    Folks the Mann Hockey stick has already been proven a hoax based upon flawed bristlecone data that he used.

    Keith Briffa’s other report that concluded that the Mann hockey stick was sound has been based upon tree ring data that he WILL NOT RELEASE.

    After the emails broke in fact the data on the Briffa research was taken down and its no longer even found on the internet.

    Additionally it has now been found that…. The data used by NOAA and NASA is shown to have excluded temperature data from northern latitudes and high elevations since 1980 which automatically shows greatly increased temperatures that supposedly shows great man-caused global warming.

    Now based upon the IPCC’s own findings the upper atmosphere must be warming significantly in order to ensure that the planet is undergoing a significant change in planetary temperature variations.

    Their very own data suggests that in the last 39 years or since they first started collecting this data at NOAA in 1971 that the upper Troposphere has actually warmed by less the 1/2 of one degree and the very highest band of temperature gradients which should have changed the most has only changed 4/10ths of one degree.

    Since the emails broke this data too has been removed from the internet.

    The AGW wingers ask us to believe the science……scoff…scoff….Okay well I guess as a right winger I would ask you all to believe that The GOP has your best interests at heart when they pass regulation that benefits corporations.

    Huh?? sounds like a fair deal to me.

  • pdx632

    Ah the fun of El Nino years. In the pacific nw, we had one of the warmest Jan on record. Of course, that was preceded by the COLDEST December in the past 20 years. Also, in Dec/Jan of 2008/9, we were covered in snow suffering through one of the snowiest periods of my lifetime (40+ years).

    Of course, the wingers aren’t the ones who decided to call it GLOBAL WARMING.

  • Frank Hagan

    Weather is not climate, and it is irresponsible for anyone – warmers or skeptics – to say otherwise. Roger Pielke Jr has a great piece on that issue today at his blog.

    There is an irony that we can all enjoy, seeing the UN gather amid the one of the coldest spells in a while to promote world-wide cooperation on the issue. But irony aside, more snow or less snow doesn’t reflect either warming or cooling (except on a local level).

    Doomed is right on the controversy. If you have been following it, there’s about as much legitimacy left in the UN’s IPCC conclusions as there was in its “food for oil” program for Iraq. Their “consensus report” has to be re-evaluated in total because of sloppy science, conclusions lifted from dissertations that were never subjected to peer review, and outright lies in the form of exaggerations made with the express intent of creating alarm to induce action. They seem to have adopted the philosophy of Al Gore who said:

    I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.

  • blackoutyears

    Full quote from Gore:

    I think the answer to that depends on where your audience’s head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.

    Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the reality of the crisis, there’s going to be much more receptivity to a full-blown discussion of the solutions.

  • Chris,8599,1946082-2,00.html

    Yes, climate change is totally a hoax propagated by… um.. scientists who like it to be colder?

  • Jim S

    Nothing that Doomed posted is accurate. Some of it is outright lies. This is where the denialist movement stands now.

  • Doomed

    The mathematics behind the Mann Hockey Stick were badly flawed, such that its shape was determined by suspect bristlecone tree ring data. Controversies quickly piled up: Two expert panels involving the U.S. National Academy of Sciences were asked to investigate, the U.S. Congress held a hearing, and the media followed the story around the world.

    The expert reports upheld all of our criticisms of the Mann Hockey Stick.

    What people dont even realize is the National Academy of Science concluded that the Mann hockey stick was unreliable. But that never stopped the true believers from waving it around as if they had just won the stanley cup.

    Now as for the Briffa report.

    This is the community questioning where the Briffa report went immediately following the release of the emails.

    Well my bad……they have now released a reworked report on their data which cleans up the sloppy work.

    Remember Briffa is the same guy who claimed the Little Ice age did not exist and in fact his own colleague proved him wrong and so they dropped the Polar Urals from their reports all together.

    The science is exceedingly sloppy and its written for one thing and one thing only……..MONEY.

    But thats okay the GOP loves the poor man and wants them to succeed just look at all the nice benefits they have given the corporations over the years.

  • Doomed

    However just to show you that my heart is in the right place.

    C02 is in fact a serious danger to mankind if we do not seriously do something about it in the next 50 years or so.

    The AGW people are locked into a one horse race…….GLOBAL WARMING.

    The facts of the matter is that we have indeed been warming for 112,000 years and most likely will continue to warm. Thats not bad. It is in fact part of natures cycle.

    However the true danger of climbing co2 levels is not in global warming but in the acidification of the oceans.

    Were the AGW crowd to start focusing on that then you might see something done about co2 emissions because this acidification threatens to destroy reef ecosystems and thereby curtailing our food supplies that we garner from the oceans.

    In a world that is fast approaching the 8.4 billion max capacity that alone could be a reason for the total ban of coal, gasoline and oil based products on our planet.

    If that is what the AGW crowd wants, and I believe it is.then you just need to drop Global Warming and switch to ocean ph levels rising because as anyone who follows this knows that the oceans are carbon sinks and our oceans are starting to show signs of carbon saturation.

  • Chris

    Global Warming is phrase that is used by the media and politicians, scientists call it “climate change”.

  • JimS

    Doomed is lying about the NAS report. It’s getting tiresome hearing so much deceitfulness. Here is a link to the “report in brief” on the NAS web site.

  • JimS

    kk, I don’t view comments about Vancouver as anecdotal proof of anything, just something to point out that there is a counter other anecdotes about the horrible winter in the U.S. proving anything about long term trends. Those trends are what matters in looking at climate change.

  • Doomed

    The report from NAS today reaffirms the long-standing consensus of the climate science community: Mann’s analytical tools were flawed and there are lingering uncertainties about early temperature records, but the basic finding — that temperature has recently spiked, and the globe is warmer than any time in 1000 years — is likely sound and has gained support from numerous other scientists and studies.


    The report says that there is questions about the validity of the long term trends that they are using in their charts to show a gobal warming or cooling patterns.

    never the less as Roger Pielke and others lay out for us the Mann hockey stick is nothing but a three ring circus by the believers to force upon the non believers their views of AGW.

    Additonally the real debate is does CO2 cause global warming or not?

    In all the collected core samples….co2 increases followed a global warming event….not caused one. Hence if we are to look at the increasing co2 levels of today they are a result of a warming planet and NOT the cause of it.

    Historically that is an accurate prediction based upon coral, cores and tree ring data sets.

  • Shane


    I just read though the link you provided (thank you). The section that stuck out to me regarding the discussion at hand was this:

    “Even less confidence can be
    placed in the original conclusions by Mann et
    al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest
    decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a
    millennium” because the uncertainties inherent in
    temperature reconstructions for individual years
    and decades are larger than those for longer time
    periods, and because not all of the available proxies
    record temperature information on such short

    Now, can you be more specific as to how Doomed is lying? I find his assertion regarding Mann and the NAS report as defensible and your brief comments lacking specific criticism.

  • Jim S

    It’s interesting that you ignore the preceding paragraph in the article, Shane. It is much more pertinent to climate change than the one you quote.

    The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998,
    1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in
    the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented
    during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion
    has subsequently been supported by an
    array of evidence that includes both additional
    large-scale surface temperature reconstructions
    and pronounced changes in a variety of local
    proxy indicators, such as melting on icecaps and
    the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in
    many cases appear to be unprecedented during
    at least the last 2,000 years.
    Not all individual
    proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is
    unprecedented, although a larger fraction of geographically
    diverse sites experienced exceptional
    warmth during the late 20th century than during
    any other extended period from A.D. 900 onward.

  • Jim S

    Your arguments fail again, Doomed. Geez, study some logic and science.

    CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This basic fact has been recognized since the days of Svante Arrhenius in the Nineteenth Century. The American Institute of Physics certainly disagrees with you. And there have been other causes of massive increases of CO2 in the past, such as the Siberian Traps. Also, try this article. And this one too.

  • Doomed

    JIm S

    No my friend I am a geologist. I have been one since 1974. I have worked in the field or in an office for 36 years now.

    I think I have a little basic understanding of the AGW science.

    Just how much of the “Greenhouse Effect” is caused by human activity?

    It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account– about 5.53%, if not.

    The IPCC lists 18 man made green house gases that exist in our atmosphere of which C02 combines for 5.53 percent of the green house gases in the atmosphere IF you take into account the largest contributor to GHG…water Vapor….99.6 percent if you do not take water vapor into account.

    Now if you look at the PPM readings of pre industrial age the PPM was around 280 PPM as compared to todays 370 PPM…..In essence the percent has risen from 4 percent to 5.5 percent in 150 years.

    Temperature variations have risen and fallen within a scale of about .6 degree centigrade during that time frame.

    Incidently if you read Michael Manns release of his data he admitts that their are many contributing factors to the apparent rising of surface temperatures during the last century that have a direct impact on temperature… of which happens to be the corresponding rise of CO2.

    Science is my business. Debate is not…sorry you feel I have to be a debater to talk science. However that seems to be the mindset of the AGW crowd these days….browbeat the disbelievers with Alinsky tactics.

    I’ve read the book. I stand by my assertions and the assertions of 1000’s of my colleagues who do NOT believe the science is SETTLED.

    Thank you.

  • Shane


    I’m sorry you feel I ignored that section. That the link you posted supported your position was unremarkable. That there was an assertion that supported Doomed’s larger theme that climate change science has over reached found in the evidence you provided, I thought to be more remarkable.

    I look forward to reading the links you provided in the following comment.

  • Jim S

    But you prove that you don’t understand the science, Doomed, when you fall back to the old denialist argument concerning water vapor. Water vapor is a feedback mechanism. CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases that stay in the atmosphere much longer are the forcing mechanisms. Do you even understand the vast disparity between how long it takes for CO2 to leave the atmosphere? Honestly, I put your claims on the same level as the geologists who work hard to prove that the earth is only 6000 years old or so and that the features that most geologists put down to changes over time were caused by Noah’s flood.

  • Doomed

    Do you even understand the vast disparity between how long it takes for CO2 to leave the atmosphere?

    Temperature will most likely vary from point to point in a moving fluid such as the atmosphere or ocean, but its heat remains constant so long as energy is not added or removed from the system. Such as giant volcanic activity. Consequently, heat and not temperature is the only sound means for monitoring the total energy of the climate system.

    Because the upper 2.6 meters of the oceans surface has the same heat capacity as the entire atmosphere above it, water is a more appropriate means for heat accumulation than the air because of its ability to store heat. Because of this facet of its ability to hold and retain heat it is a much better means for assessing global warming and cooling.

    As IPCC’s champion Hansen, et. al. have concluded, the ocean MUST be regarded as the main reservoir of atmospheric heat and the primary driver of climate fluctuations.

    In 2007 Roger Pielke, Sr. suggested that ocean heat should be used not just to monitor the energy imbalance in the climate system, but as a “litmus test” for falsifying the IPCC’s AGW hypothesis (Pielke, “A Litmus Test…”,, April 4, 2007).

    Using measurements from the ARGO arrays from 2003 to the end of 2008 the calculations have been made. These figures reveal a failure on the part of the GISS model to project warming. The heat deficit shows that from 2003-2008 there was no positive radiative imbalance caused by anthropogenic factors, despite increasing levels of CO2. Indeed, the radiative imbalance was negative, meaning the earth was losing slightly more energy than it absorbed.

    The oceans have been cooling. At least since 2003. This coincides with overall temperature reductions since 1998.

    HEAT….NOT TEMPERATURE is the true measure of AGW. But with the slight of hand and the wave of a wand these scientists want you to believe that a thermometer is the scientific benchmark for measuring the entirety and complexity of a planets metrics with such complexity that they hope those of us skeptical enough will not see such minor things as their reports are still waiting on the heat lags that they cant explain.

  • Doomed

    Interesting. My post on fluid dynamics and heat retention in rebuttal to you is now gone.

    I’ll try one more post on the subject…..

    Some more annoying facts. This time from NCDC annual report on 2009 to date.

    This is their wording….”The near-Antarctic southern ocean and the Gulf of Alaska featured notable cooler-than-average temperatures.” NOTABLE.

    This is their wording…..”Conversely, the September 2009 Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent was 2.2 percent above the 1979–2000 average. This was the third largest sea ice extent in September, behind 2006 and 2007. Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent for September has increased at an average rate of 0.7 percent per decade.”

    Given the global heat retention of the globe rather then surface temperature measurments which have gone up a whopping 1 degree in 100 years it is more convienient to measure heat retention.

    Following are their raw data numbers supplied since 1979 and their conclusions.

    Heat retention in the Stratosphere trend is -.41 global

    Heat retention in the Troposphere trend is +.02 global

    Heat Retention in the lower Troposphere trend is +.13

    If averaged out and weighted we get a global cooling event of roughly -.0866 degrees.

    This is taken from their OWN data…….this is why in the Emails they constantly refer to the pesky truth…..HIDE THE DECLINE>

  • JimS

    Gee, Doomed, once again your attempts to deceive are a little pathetic. Or are you really that blinded by your far right wing ideology? You see, NCDC (NOAA) already has a global analysis based on the entire year 2009. What were their conclusions on a global basis, which is want matters on this subject?

    Global Temperatures
    The years 2001 through 2008 each rank among the ten warmest years of the 130-year (1880-2009) record and 2009 was no exception. The global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.56°C (1.01°F) above the 20th century average, tying with 2006 as the fifth warmest since records began in 1880. Globally averaged land temperature was 0.77°C (1.39°F) above average, resulting in a tie with 2003 as the seventh warmest on record. The ocean temperature was 0.48°C (0.86°F) above average—tying with 2002 and 2004 as the fourth warmest since records began in 1880. The 2000s decade (2000-2009) is the warmest on record for the globe, with a surface global temperature of 0.54°C (0.96°F) above the long-term (20th century) average. This shattered the 1990s value of 0.36°C (0.65°F). See the global time series.

    Global Top 10
    Warm Years (Jan-Dec) Anomaly °C Anomaly °F
    2005 0.62 1.11
    1998 0.60 1.08
    2003 0.58 1.04
    2002 0.57 1.03
    2009 0.56 1.01
    2006 0.56 1.01
    2007 0.55 0.99
    2004 0.54 0.97
    2001 0.52 0.94
    2008 0.48 0.86
    1997 0.48 0.86

    In addition the phrase “hide the decline” is only a pesky truth for those who laugh at your position on the issue. Why? Read the following from The Guardian.

    The most quoted soundbite in the affair comes from an email from Prof Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, to Prof Mike Mann of the University of Virginia in 1999, in which he discussed using “Mike’s Nature trick” to “hide the decline”. The phrase has been widely spun as an effort to prevent the truth getting out that global temperatures had stopped rising.

    The Alaska governor Sarah Palin, in the Washington Post on 9 December, attacked the emailers as a “highly politicised scientific circle” who “manipulated data to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperatures”. She was joined by the Republican senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma – who has for years used his chairmanship of the Environment and Public Works Committee to campaign against climate scientists and to dismiss anthropogenic global warming as “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people”. During the Copenhagen climate conference, which he attended on a Senate delegation, he referred to Jones’s “hide the decline” quote and said: “Of course, he means hide the decline in temperatures.”

    This is nonsense. Given the year the email was written, 1999, it cannot be anything of the sort. At that time there was no suggestion of a decline in temperatures. The previous year was the warmest on record. The full email from Jones says: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith [Briffa]’s, to hide the decline.”The decline being referred to was an apparent decline in temperatures shown in analysis of tree rings, which have historically correlated well with changes in temperature. That relationship has broken down in the past half century. The reasons are still debated.

  • Doomed


    I will try this once again.

    I have not said that the planet is not warming. In fact I have said just the opposite. It has indeed been warming for the last 112,000 years or since the end of the last glacial age.

    I have not said that the co2 in our atmosphere has not risen in the last 150 years. It has. That is easily verified by using simple devices for measuring the PPM’s of Co2 in the atmosphere.

    The question is WHY is the planet warming.

    The debate is that C02 is driving the warming.

    I disagree and when you look at fluid dynamics the real means of measuring temperature is thru heat retention and irradiative imbalances rather then with a simple themometer.

    Remember the basics of fluid dynamics will maintain an even temperature throughout the body providing new heat spikes are not introduced.

    Hence to get a valid reading of the real warming of the planet we need to look at heat retention and not a series of thermometer readings around the globe.

    So when I look at the Ncdc reports……I look at the raw data. They digest the data and then spit out a report based upon what they think the government who funds them wants to hear.

    They ignore their own wording that sea ice is increasing since 1979 and instead focus on temperature readings. If indeed the planet is warming based upon their conclusions then why is the sea ice growing rather then declining?

    Hide the decline is a valid argument because the True believers have Alinskiezed the argument into temperature readings and all other data is insignificant.

    I disagree and I voice my reasonings based upon sound science. Thousands of my colleagues agree. We just dont hear about them because they are liars and idiots for daring to believe the science is not settled.

    IN the end they might well be right that CO2 is driving the rising temperatures of this planet but I highly doubt it based upon historical evidence that suggests strongly that co2 increase follows a warming planet and does not cause it.

  • JimS

    But your basis is by accepting Pielke’s argument and rejecting all other climatologist’s work. Pielke’s “suggestion” was on a web site and has never been vetted in peer reviewed journals or by any other method. Please note that the NOAA information I linked to uses both atmospheric and ocean warming. That is the real way to determine these things, not by rejecting atmospheric readings because they don’t support your preconceived notions. That isn’t how real research science works and if your claim about your profession is true you should know it.

    Sea ice increased? Globally? Only in Antarctica? Where exactly and by how much? It seems that the NSIDC disagrees with you when it comes to the Arctic.

    As far as your claims about historical evidence proving something about our modern environment as modified by people, read here if you can stand it since it’s written by actual climatologists instead of right wing ideologues like Watts.

  • Doomed


    You continue to preach….hell fire and damnation and call liars anyone who questions the scientific wisdom the the prevailing doctrine.

    From NCDC’s own report using their own verbage.

    “””Meanwhile, the April 2009 Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent was 13.5 percent above the 1979-2000 average. This was the second largest sea ice extent in April, behind 2008. Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent for April has increased at an average rate of 3.0 percent per decade.”””

    I don’t know what to tell you my friend. If you want to put on blinders and continue to believe that all the ice is melting then go for it…..I can’t change your mind I can only continue to report on what is factually disturbing.

    From the IPCC’s own glossary of terms:

    Energy balance
    Averaged over the globe and over longer time periods, the energy budget of the climate system must be in balance. Because the climate system derives all its energy from the Sun, this balance implies that, globally, the amount of incoming solar radiation must on average be equal to the sum of the outgoing reflected solar radiation and the outgoing infrared radiation emitted by the climate system. A perturbation of this global radiation balance, be it human induced or natural, is called radiative forcing.

    Here they get it right..radiative forcing. The idea that x in equals x out to provide for a radiative balance of heat. Hansen ascribes to the fact that the earth’s atmosphere must be warming at a factor of x+ in order to substantiate the effects of Co2 build ups in the atmosphere.

    Their raw data:

    Heat retention in the Stratosphere trend is -.41 global

    Heat retention in the Troposphere trend is +.02 global

    Heat Retention in the lower Troposphere trend is +.13

    These are the 30 year means trends for each of these categories.

    These are their own numbers. Not mine.

    There is no radiative imbalance present that substantiates the panic that Al Gore and the greeniacs have forced upon mankind.

    Does that mean we should not be stewards of our planet. Absolutely Not. It means we should try even harder to foster a world that is taken care of by its inhabitants.

    Never the less does the scientific readings that they keep ignoring in favor of surface temperature readings that are rising justify destroying world economies?

  • Doomed

    The ice that is melting in the northern hemisphere is actually very disconcerting based upon a hypothesis that I and others have.

    1. Sea ice melts and it will not change the sea ocean levels by any significant amount because it already floats and therefore its potential displacement is already factored into the elevations of the oceans given the slight changes that will occur as this fresh water is fed into the oceans.

    2. The fact that sea ice is melting and pouring millions of cubic miles of fresh water into the oceans will change the salinity levels and force changes that could severely affect the Thermohaline flow patterns of the oceans.

    These changes is sea tides could influence a drastic change in Northern hemisphere weather and could effectively shut down, stop or otherwise force the northern warm tidal currents which keep the norther hemisphere moderate in temperature.

    More and more research is coming to light that shows that in the past the earth has under grown radically quick and radically drastic changes in weather. Not on the order of thousands of years but rather on the order of a 100 years and now new research is emerging that suggest this could even be in the 10’s of years.

    If you want something to worry about……Global warming is nothing but a precursor to the drastic swing into another global ice age as mother nature fixes herself.

    That in my opinion is what we face as trillions of gallons of FRESH water per minute pour into the earths oceans changing the salinity levels and in effect change the very dynamics of the oceans conveyor belts of weather.

  • JimS

    Every model used by climatologists that I am aware of shows that the Arctic and Antarctic react differently as the climate changes.

    Fresh water affecting the thermocline is more likely to produce drastic changes in the Northern Hemisphere, primarily those parts bordering the northern Atlantic. Not produce a truly global effect.

  • JimS

    More detailed analysis of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice.

  • JimS

    The quick summary from NSIDC:

    Passive microwave satellite data reveal that, since 1979, winter Arctic ice extent has decreased about 4.2 percent per decade (Meier et al. 2006). Antarctic ice extent is increasing (Cavalieri et al. 2003), but the trend is small.

  • WHQ

    I’ve enjoyed reading the back and forth on this, particularly what Doomed has written. I’m not being at all snarky when I write that. I’d also add that I think both Doomed and JimS are arguing in good faith.

    One thing that bothers me, though, is that I live in the lower Troposphere, not the Stratosphere. And I get the distinction between heat and temperature. There’s more heat in an iceberg than in my lit oven. But it’s not simply a question of the total heat of the entire system of the Earth, but how that heat is distributed, even if the total heat remains unchanged, and even if it goes down some.

  • Doomed


    The science behind heat retention is whats important in determining if indeed the planet is experiencing a serious long term warming event or is in fact adequately adjusting for the changes in its atmosphere.

    AS the IPCC states above in their addendum of terms used in their IPCC report………

    globally, the amount of incoming solar radiation must on average be equal to the sum of the outgoing reflected solar radiation

    The contention is that CO2 is blocking X+ amount from leaving….or adding to the greenhouse effect.

    To be certain in the AGW book of facts, the effects of the co2 buildup in relation to global warming will significantly increase the heat retained in the upper atmosphere even more so then we are seeing in the surface temperature readings taken daily around the globe.

    Puzzling but their own data fails to show any substantial irradative imbalance and thus the question has to be asked. Why?

    I submit that the answer is that CO2 is not a factor in global warming AT THIS STAGE of this cycle of glaciation but is rather a by product of global warming.

    My objections are not to suggest that we are not warming, that co2 is not building up in the atmosphere or that the world might indeed come to an end in 50 years.

    My objection is that we owe it to mankind to offer them the truth as we understand it without hiding facts and figures that dont jive with our beliefs. That is religion……not science.

  • Jim S

    Doomed, a religious acolyte such as yourself should know. Because there is no grand conspiracy to hide facts and figures on the science, except on your part. To quote a movie on a different subject “The truth? You couldn’t handle the truth!”. And in this thread you have proven that over and over again. Consider your misrepresentation, presumably purposeful, of what the IPCC was saying in your latest post. The full quote is:

    Energy balance – Averaged over the globe and over longer time periods, the energy budget of the climate system must be in balance. Because the climate system derives all its energy from the Sun, this balance implies that, globally, the amount of incoming solar radiation must on average be equal to the sum of the outgoing reflected solar radiation and the outgoing infrared radiation emitted by the climate system. A perturbation of this global radiation balance, be it human induced or natural, is called radiative forcing.

    In other words, if the system is in energy balance the section you quoted is true, whereas if anything, including human activity, has thrown it out of balance it is not true. Did you do this on purpose? Given what you put in and what you left out I have to assume you did.

    You may submit something as foolish as CO2 being produced as a byproduct of warming even now, even as we know without a doubt that human activity is pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere a year and that the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 12 years.

    I couldn’t help but think of you when I saw this article.

  • Doomed

    I already addressed your concerns and in fact it is the heart and crux of my argument.

    Here they get it right..radiative forcing. The idea that x in equals x out to provide for a radiative balance of heat. Hansen ascribes to the fact that the earth’s atmosphere must be warming at a factor of x+ in order to substantiate the effects of Co2 build ups in the atmosphere.

    Their raw data:

    Heat retention in the Stratosphere trend is -.41 global

    Heat retention in the Troposphere trend is +.02 global

    Heat Retention in the lower Troposphere trend is +.13

    These are the 30 year means trends for each of these categories.

    These are their own numbers. Not mine.

    There is no radiative imbalance present that substantiates the panic that Al Gore and the greeniacs have forced upon mankind.

    Because the heat retention due to radiative forcing is of such small and almost inconsequential numbers what then shall they ever do.

  • Doomed

    ***warning*** the following is cut and pasted from another Online article.

    The evidence that scientists have been censoring contradictory views is “horrible,” said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute, as quoted in the Wall Street Journal. “This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn’t questionable practice. This is unethical.

    *end of cut and paste*

    For as anyone who is following this discussion has seen how a true believer JIMS….has scorned me….called me a lair, deceiver and questioned my lack of scientific knowledge on the subject and I am only commenting in a comments section on a blog about politics. Imagine if I had attempted to publish my own research. Imagine my attempts at keeping my job as my employer receives 1000’s of hate mails, nasty emails, and wakes up one morning to a 100 picketers outside our offices.

    Just imagine why I keep my name as DOOMED.

    “”Mr. Mann of the hockey stick fame…noted in a March 2003 email, after the journal “Climate Research” published a paper not to Mr. Mann’s liking, that “This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the ‘peer-reviewed literature’. Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a journal!”

    One of the released climategate emails.

    What to do…..what to do?

    “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.”

    This is the science that some people defend.

    For me this is a religion. I do not worship my findings. I continually scour raw data the world over trying to prove myself wrong. If I find that I am in error I will immediately jump on the AGW bandwagon and demand a reckoning. But unless and until I can find evidence that is conclusive I will continue to question, research and analyze the data.

    Its what scientists do.

  • JimS

    But Doomed, you have been lying. You have been taking things out of context. You have been misrepresenting what is said in articles. If you don’t want to be criticized for these activities, quit doing it.

    You are not a climatologist. Your assumptions and methodology in analyzing raw data is questionable. Justifiably so. One example is your insistence on your own belief that in spite of the known facts concerning how we put millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year and that it is not removed by any natural system at a matching rate the CO2 increase is produced by warming that is produced by some unknown, undetected natural process. And I notice that here you attempt to present yourself as a bit more rational than you do in friendlier locations. I went to find the article you quoted about Mann and his friends taking over a journal and what did I find? Multiple other blogs you’d posted the same quote on but with slightly different accompanying comments. Like this one.

    “”Mr. Mann of the hockey stick fame…noted in a March 2003 email, after the journal “Climate Research” published a paper not to Mr. Mann’s liking, that “This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the ‘peer-reviewed literature’. Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a journal!”

    What to do…what to do….As Mr. Mann suggests in another email….”Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.” In other words, keep dissent out of the respected journals. When that fails, redefine what constitutes a respected journal to exclude any that publish inconvenient views.

    No matter the spin they put on this. They are liars. Deceivers and perpetrators of a massive world wide hoax of proportions that will be discussed a 1000 years from now.

    The press failing to cover this only puts the exclamation mark on the fact they are LIARS, DECEIVERS and accomplices to the most massive hoax ever to be attempted.

    The three ring circus continues with Barak Obama marching to Stockholm. His head lowered. Blinders on. Earmuffs firmly in place. Committing the USA to job loss of massive proportions to APPEASE his 25 percent far left, loony toons base.

    It doesn’t appear there that you consider those that disagree with you to be scientists, but frauds. You work in a field that is known for looking after their corporate interests first and misrepresenting the work of real scientists. In addition the article you quote without linking to is highly questionable. The Cato Institute and Pat Michaels have a bad reputation in this field that they have worked hard to earn. For example, the letter you quote is in response to that journal publishing a paper that was not disliked because of disagreeing with the author, but because it was just a really bad paper with blindingly obvious mistakes that should have resulted in its rejection. As far as Pat Michaels opinion, why does he have any credibility? He’s been nothing but an industry shill for years.

  • Doomed


    I will let your continued attempts and personal assaults on my integrity stand as a testimony to why I would post such things about the AGW crowd on other sites.

    Yours is a true testimony to the Browbeating those of us who do not worship at your altar take.

    I have posted such things because I have had run ins with 100’s just like you. All calling me liar, cheat, thief, shill and idiot.

    Thank you JIMS…..your posts do more good at persuading moderates to look a second time at the science then I ever could.

  • JimS

    I want people to look at the science. The real science, not misrepresentations, misquotes and outright fabrications. Just because you are a petroleum geologist doesn’t mean you have some superior knowledge about climatology or the scientific method. What is your research background? What makes your methods superior to those of climatologists with education and training in that field who have done their own original research and still disagree with your viewpoints? Don’t go into the conspiracy theory junk, give a real reason. Your own professional organization, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, even admits things about climate change are true that you deny. So does the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics and virtually every other professional association of scientists. This Wikipedia article references only scientific opinions on the issue. Maybe, just maybe, those hundreds are right, given your obfuscation in this thread. Maybe they understand how this article relates to you and so many others like you because you, of course, would never question your expertise. My views are those I have developed by following other people’s opinions, pro and con, before coming to comfortable conclusions that fit nicely with my political persuasion, unlike what you have written. If you want to convince me that global climate change with mankind contributing a major portion of it isn’t true it will need much better science than what you have presented.

  • Doomed

    No jim. You dont want people to look at the science. You want people to look at your version of the science and believe what you believe and accept what you accept.

    Neither does the rest of the IPCC panel. Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, Al Gore, Hansen or many of the others.

    The facts are plain and out in the open.

    1. The planet is warming.
    2. Co2 is rising.
    3. Weather is changing.


    In your mind the science is settled.

    In mine it is not. The difference between us is I dont call you a Liar when you claim x, y or z.

  • JimS

    I wasn’t the one cherry picking data and taking quotes out of context, either. CO2 is rising. Human activity pumps out truly massive quantities of it. Yet your claim is that the CO2 increase is caused by warming, not that CO2 is a recognized greenhouse gas that contributes to the warming. You attempt to reverse cause and effect because of what your interpretation of the paleoclimatology before mankind says and ignore the simple fact that humanity is doing things to affect the climate. The true question that is not settled is exactly how much we are and will continue to affect the climate. I in no way consider that settled. But then again, neither do virtually any actual climatologists.

  • Doomed

    I do not cherry pick data. I provide data that calls into question YOUR data.

    I said………The oceans have been cooling. At least since 2003. This coincides with overall temperature reductions since 1998.

    You said I was a lair.

    As for C02.

    simply explain to me why C02 mirrors temperature variations 400,000 years ago and today. Because if you know you are smarter then all of us and if you dont want to know then I would call you a true believer.

  • JimS

    Spencer is a jackass. The man also doesn’t believe in evolution. His views are shaped primarily by his religious and political convictions, even as in most public arenas he attempts to pretend otherwise.

    It was not the concept of the ocean cooling since 2003 that I disagreed with. I did not say that specific claim was false, because it is not. However, it is an example of cherry picking again, because the cooling is still only a fraction of the heat that has been gained in the previous decades.

    You cite your own blog as a reference? One called globalscams? The only thing that this does is prove my opinion that you are not interested in the science at all, but that your opinion derives more from your political leanings. As I stated before, ignoring our production of CO2 because there have been historical levels of the gas for reasons other than human production of it and other greenhouse gases just flunks the logic test IMO.

  • kranky kritter

    The true question that is not settled is exactly how much we are and will continue to affect the climate. I in no way consider that settled. But then again, neither do virtually any actual climatologists.

    Well, it’s obvious that by our mere existence and activity we do affect the climate, if we construe “climate” very loosely .But if by climate we are speaking directly to the issue of whether or not we are undeniably causing Earth to warm in a harmful way then I don’t quite agree.

    In other words, I think that the question of whether we are substantially effecting the climate (causing Earth to warm) is unsettled.

    Now if we look at climate in a broader context as simply our environment, then it’s easier to accept the idea that human activity is altering it. For example, Increased CO2 contributes to ocean acidification, which could harm marine life in ways we may regret.

    It’s unfortunate that the polarization of the debate makes us unable to come together on common ground to begin mitigation related to activities that have clearly undesirable environmental effects. But I don’t agree that there is a crisis situation that requires all of Earth to take collective drastic actions that will probably negatively disrupt our socioeconomic condition.

    But then I am just not a member of the drain-circler’s club. I believe humans on Earth (on average) continue to grittily earn a quite slow but relatively steady rise in their condition. More people living longer and better with more toys. Of course, past results are no guarantee of future performance, cheerfully granted. That’s why I said “grittily earn.” I am also a string believer in HG Wells notion that we are in a constant race between education and catastrophe.

  • Doomed

    The AGW agenda is politically driven and what they dont bother to tell you is that there is absolutely nothing that can be done to save the planet from c02.

    Man expells 250-400kg of co2 annually. Each man. Thats 3 billion tons per year. Animals expell an estimated 4 billion tons per year of co2. Plant life expells an estimated super humongous amount of billions of tons per year. The burning of forests, the deforestation of trees and the volcanic activity on the planet expells an estimated 3 billion tons per year. The expulsion of co2 from the oceans back into the atmosphere is immeasurable.

    That is where the natural co2 comes from. As for the buring of fossill fuels we produce roughly 10-12 billion tons of co2 from burning fossil fuels anually.

    Right now their is 39 parts out of 100,000 parts of co2 in the atmosphere. At the present rate of co2 production it will take 5 years to change that to 40 parts out of 100,000.

    We know that co2 has gone up in the last 150 years from 280 to 380 ppm.

    And the reason is clear. Man.

    The question is can we fix it and the answer is NO we cannot….the only thing we have control over is the burning of fossil fuels.

    What the AGW crowd fails to tell you is that if we totally eliminate fossil fuels from our planet we will only reduce our co2 imput into the atmosphere by 10-12 billion tons per year. That will mean it will take 7 years for the co2 content to go from 39 to 40 molecules based on a stagnant population.

    Population does not remain stagnant. It increases…as it increases we need more of everything including animals to care for this population.

    The AGW crowd knows that.

    Hence their Agenda is one of using a crisis to control population because studies suggest strongly that stable and DEVELOPING nations tend to have stable populations. Under developed nations have exploding populations.

    The transfer of wealth that the AGW agenda is begging for thru promises at Stockholm is not about saving the globe from global warming…….its about transferring wealth to poor nations so that they can stablize.

    Its worldwide socialism paid for by the rich and redistributed to the poor nations.

    C02 is nothing but a scam to transfer wealth. It is why the first thing the senate took up was CAP AND TAX. It is why Obama personally went to Stockholm to try and convince them he is working on the SCAM of the millenium and they need to just be patient until the liars can convince his nation that we are ALL GONNA DIE…..if we dont send 100 billion a year to the UN to save Bangledesh.

    AGW is a hoax of worldwide proportions.

    NOTHING can be done to stop the increase of co2 save stopping the growth of plants, animals and HUMANS.

    But they cant propose that so instead they use Global Warming, AGW, C02, Cows farting and OIL to create a crisis to spread the wealth.

    AGW is wealth redistribution. It is political. That is why people like JIMS…… me names….Call people like Mr. Spencer a jackass for daring to question their motives…..They know the science cannot bare the scrutiny of the truth……so they challenge EVERY single soul that speaks up about it.

    It is why I personally remain anonymous on the internet.

  • JimS

    Actually, Doomed, I just describe you accurately. Then you say I’m calling you names. When you say things about AGW being a scam and a hoax the only thing you do is prove me completely correct. The truth is that you are apparently projecting yourself onto me. Because when you rant and rave about how AGW is a fraud, a scam and only being put forth in order to steal money or gain power you are the one calling thousands of honest scientists names. Frankly, if what you’ve posted here is an example of your scientific expertise, expertise is definitely the wrong word to use in describing your master of science.

  • trescml

    Don’t see Drudge bringing up the weather in DC these days…