Great Global Warming news for ACT
Glaciers shrinking in Southern Alps
New Zealand's glaciers are showing the lowest total ice mass on record with more than twice the volume of Rangitoto Island melting away in a year. Research released yesterday by the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research showed the Southern Alps glaciers had lost over 2.5cu km (2.2 billion tonnes) of permanent ice from April 2007 to March this year.
That is the fourth highest annual loss since monitoring started, leaving the glaciers with the lowest total ice mass on record of just 44.9cu km. Niwa principal scientist Jim Salinger told the Herald that was an 18 per cent loss since 1976 when 54cu km was recorded. The 2.2 billion tonnes loss from last year to the end of March was "very significant", he said.
And this will be great news for ACT who only last week were telling NZers that global warming will be a great benefit to NZers and that C02 is really a maligned nutrient that helps grow plants. Of course ACT didn’t really go into much detail beyond that so I’ll assume that they consider the rapid melting of the glaciers as a great opportunity to view mountains without that pesky ice getting in the way, perhaps Rodney Hide will spin this as a great opportunity for business to import and breed mountain goats on the now bare areas.
posted by Bomber @ 6:23 am
15 comments
15 Comments:
Alarmists are quick to declare that others don’t understand the intricacies of climate science and therefore have nothing to contribute. But apparently climatologists do not have much grounding in how feedback works. Unaware of their ignorance, they invoke net positive feedback in their GCMs. Net positive feedback, with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, causes the GCMs to falsely predict continued global warming. If they understood feedback they would realize, based on the Vostok ice core temperature record for the last glaciation, that significant net positive feedback does not occur and thus added atmospheric carbon dioxide has no significant influence on climate. Graphs showing this are at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html . Other assessments from entirely different perspectives also determine that there is no significant net positive feedback. They can be seen at http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/index.html and http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm .
Standard denialist bullshit.
For CO2 not to cause warming, you have to rewrite the laws of physics - right down to quantum physics. No sign of your commenter doing that (I looked at his link).
For the CO2/temp "lag" in the ice core record, refer here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
(That site, Skeptical Science, is a great resort for debunking nutters - put together by an Aussie scientist)
The record of CO2 in the ice cores doesn't mean what he thinks it does (and see paper referred to here: http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/09/11/ice.core.studies.confirm.accuracy.climate.models).
OK. You just revealed that you don't understand how feedback works. It might help if you would look at the other two links.
The current UAH satellite numerical data (lower atmospheric temperature anomalies from the 1979 thru 1998 average) is at http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt .
According to this data, the AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE for the first 8 months of 2008 is LOWER than the average from 2000 thru 2007 by an amount equal to 46.7% of the total linearized increase (NOAA data) during the 20th century. Since 2000, the CARBON DIOXIDE LEVEL HAS INCREASED by 13.6% of the total increase since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Such a short period doesn't prove anything but is indicative of what is to come. The sun remains spotless.
I watched Rodney on TV tonight with his yellow jacket. He was talking about his father and his life.
His voice has changed.
I think he better come out soon.
There is only one complete and exact computer of global climate and that is the planet itself. By definition it complies with all laws of nature including physics and quantum mechanics. Einstein said “no number of tests can prove I’m right but only one is needed to prove I’m wrong”. That one test that proves to be wrong the theory that added atmospheric carbon dioxide causes global warming was run on the planet computer and the results are archived in the Vostok ice cores. They show that, repeatedly, a temperature increasing trend changed to a decreasing trend with the carbon dioxide level higher than it had been when the temperature was increasing. Those who understand how feedback works will know that this temperature trend reversal is not possible with significant net positive feedback. Thus, as far as global climate is concerned and contrary to the assumption in the GCMs, significant net positive feedback does not exist.
blah blah blah
it doesn't take a scientist to know that years of pumping pollution into the atmosphere will have a negative effect, does it?
What does it take to know that carbon dioxide, a transparent, odorless, tasteless gas that is absolutely necessary for plants to do photosynthesis (which is the only way that nature makes food) is not a polutant? Without carbon dioxide for photosynthesis there would be no visible life forms on earth’s surface. There is about 50 times as much carbon dissolved in the oceans in the form of CO2 and CO2 hydration products as exists in the atmosphere. For most of earth's history the atmospheric carbon dioxide level has been several times the present.
OK, you've just demonstrated you don't understand how the climate system works. One year (or 8 months) proves nothing: you need to look at long term trends. There's a lot of "unforced variability" in climate (wiggles in the line, in other words), so you need longer - multi decade - amounts of info before you can pronounce o the presence or absence (or change) of trends.
As for feedback, if the climate system is dominated by negative feedbacks, the ice age/warm interglacial cycle would be impossible - and we know it isn't.
There's a lot of good info out there on climate. You obviously haven't found it.
Pip pip!
Thanks for echoing back what I said about 8 months not proving anything. I don't think that the last 30 years means much either or even the last 140 years since it was during the warm up from the Little Ice Age.
Although you said that you looked at 'his link' apparently you didn't. If you did you would know that there are 4 graphs that extend from the present back 140, 1000, 11000 and 140,000 years.
Look at the second graph in the link. It covers the last glaciation and interglacial. Notice that, repeatedly during the glacial period, a temperature increasing trend changed to a decreasing trend with the carbon dioxide level higher than it had been when the temperature was increasing. That could not happen if there were net positive feedback.
Look at the end of the last interglacial about 112,000 years ago. Note that the carbon dioxide level didn't change much for thousands of years after the temperature started down. It is pretty obvious from this that temperature is not driven by carbon dioxide level.
There is a lot of bad info out there on climate. I am one of the over 31,000 scientists and engineers who know better.
It is pretty obvious from this that temperature is not driven by carbon dioxide level.
Only if you ignore the basic physics of radiation in the atmosphere. To demonstrate that carbon dioxide does not have a warming effect, you will need to rewrite basic physics, right down to the quantum level.
Go ahead, make my day.
The climate system is influenced by many factors, and over the ice age cycle the main driver is variations in the earth's orbit around the sun. CO2 is a feedback to the process (a positive feedback), others like changes in albedo can be both negative and positive, depending on whether ice sheets are growing or shrinking.
But the basic truth is that if the earth's climate system was dominated by negative feedback, it would not change as dramatically as we see in the paleoclimate record.
There is a lot of bad info out there on climate. I am one of the over 31,000 scientists and engineers who know better.
Amazing. You think that on the basis of a few months study you can prove that all of the scientists in an entire field have made a basic error - one that overturns everything we know (including basic physics). And then you wonder why you don't get taken seriously...
There is a lot of bad info out there on climate. I am one of the over 31,000 scientists and engineers who know better.
Firstly I think it's hit 32 000 hasn't it? And secondly, this 'petition' has been very discredited. Their definition of a 'scientist' is anyone with a degree, remove the graduates in everything other than the climate and the ACTUAL number of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS who believe global warming is not man made comes out as 1.2% of all climate scientists in America. Hardly a ringing endorsement of your position Dan.
The title CLIMATE SCIENTISTS says it all.
These are people whose careers depend on them exaggerating climate change and its causes.
There is a lot more to the basic physics of radiation in the atmosphere than simply knowing that carbon dioxide traps heat. At the specific wave lengths at which radiation is absorbed, the residual radiation shows a logarithmic decline with distance from the surface. Most of the infrared radiation energy that is absorbed by greenhouse gas molecules is immediately shared with the thousands of times more numerous nitrogen and oxygen molecules. In other words, nearly all of the absorbed infrared energy is thermalized. That is what makes the air feel warm. Calculations (see http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/barrett_ee05.pdf ) show that half of the infrared energy from the surface that ever gets absorbed gets absorbed within about 24 meters of the surface. About the only thing that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide does is cause the radiation to be absorbed a bit closer to the surface. Doubling the atmospheric carbon dioxide moves it about a meter closer. The absorbed energy is then primarily carried up by atmospheric convection currents and radiated to space by clouds and other emitters. This mechanism is well understood by scientists that are knowledgeable in optical spectroscopy. The process is not yet adequately accounted for in the GCMs. These faulty GCMs are the ONLY predictors of significant Anthropogenic Global Warming.
To get a PhD in climatology requires no knowledge of how feedback works. Without feedback the GCMs show no significant global warming. For those who understand how feedback works, the paleoclimate record refutes significant net positive feedback and thus refutes significant Anthropogenic Global Warming.
The assertion that the list of signers is discredited is an unsubstantiated, self-serving alarmist declaration. It corroborates that the alarmists have no real technical basis for their position. More about the Petition and the list of signers can be seen at http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Signers_By_Last_Name.php . Compare this to the 2,500 scientific reviewers claimed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to form a scientific consensus.
A good scientist constantly challenges their perceptions. There are plenty of links given here to assist in that challenge. You can pursue the links and do your own research of the available credible data but first you should learn how feedback works. As the atmospheric carbon dioxide level continues to increase and the average global temperature doesn’t, a lot of people are looking more and more foolish.
This mechanism is well understood by scientists that are knowledgeable in optical spectroscopy. The process is not yet adequately accounted for in the GCMs. These faulty GCMs are the ONLY predictors of significant Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Go ahead, punk. Make my day. Rewrite physics. (see RealClimate: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/simple-question-simple-answer-no)
To get a PhD in climatology requires no knowledge of how feedback works. Without feedback the GCMs show no significant global warming. For those who understand how feedback works, the paleoclimate record refutes significant net positive feedback and thus refutes significant Anthropogenic Global Warming.
How do you know what a PhD in "climatology" involves? You haven't got one (and it shows).
The assertion that the list of signers is discredited is an unsubstantiated, self-serving alarmist declaration.
No, it's the simple truth.
As the atmospheric carbon dioxide level continues to increase and the average global temperature doesn’t, a lot of people are looking more and more foolish.
The only ones looking foolish are those who think that warming's has stopped.
"Response to dan" you failed to provide an actual rebuttal for ANY of dan's points you moron
Post a Comment
<< Home