Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

Status
Not open for further replies.
Greenland Ice Sheet more vulnerable to climate change than previously thought


Date:

September 29, 2014


Source:

University of Cambridge


Summary:


A new study finds that the Greenland Ice Sheet, which covers 1.7 million square kilometers and contains enough ice to raise sea levels worldwide by seven meters, is less stable and more sensitive to climate change than previously thought.



Share This

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Email to a friend
 Facebook
 Twitter
 LinkedIn
 Google+
 Print this page


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------







A scientist explores the remains of a supraglacial lake after it has drained.

Credit: Sam Doyle


[Click to enlarge image]






A new model developed by researchers at the University of Cambridge has shown that despite its apparent stability, the massive ice sheet covering most of Greenland is more sensitive to climate change than earlier estimates have suggested, which would accelerate the rising sea levels that threaten coastal communities worldwide.


In addition to assessing the impact of the increasing levels of meltwater created and spilled into the ocean each year as the climate continues to warm, the new model also takes into account the role that the soft, spongy ground beneath the ice sheet plays in its changing dynamics. Details are published today (29 September) in the journal Nature Communications.

The Greenland Ice Sheet, which is the second-largest ice sheet in the world, covers 1.7 million square kilometres -- an area roughly eight times the size of the United Kingdom -- and contains enough ice to raise sea levels by more than seven metres if it were to be lost altogether.

Currently, due to surface melting alone, it is losing ice at a net annual rate of 200 gigatonnes, equating to 0.6 millimetres of sea level rise. A similarly large, but ultimately more uncertain source of sea level rise is tied to a net annual ice loss caused by increased movement of the ice sheet, which results in more ice being discharged into the ocean. Globally, sea levels are rising at three millimetres annually.

Large ice sheets such as in Greenland are far from stationary. Different parts of the ice often move at different speeds, causing ice to shear, a phenomenon known as ice flow.

"When these large ice sheets melt, whether that's due to seasonal change or a warming climate, they don't melt like an ice cube," said Dr Marion Bougamont of Cambridge's Scott Polar Research Institute, who led the research. "Instead, there are two sources of net ice loss: melting on the surface and increased flow of the ice itself, and there is a connection between these two mechanisms which we don't fully understand and isn't taken into account by standard ice sheet models."

Whereas other models of the Greenland Ice Sheet typically assume the ice slides over hard and impermeable bedrock -- an assumption which is largely practical and based on lack of constraints -- this study incorporates new evidence from ground-based surveys, which show soft and porous sediments at the bed of the ice sheet, more like the soft and muddy bottom of a lake than a sheet of solid rock. The new study specifically identifies the intake and temporal storage of water by weak sediment beneath the ice sheet as a crucial process in governing the ice flow.

Using a three-dimensional ice sheet model, together with an observational record of surface melting produced by collaborators at Aberystwyth University, Dr Bougamont and Dr Poul Christoffersen were able to accurately reproduce how the ice sheet's seasonal movement changes in response to the amount of surface meltwater being delivered to the ground below.

Lakes which form on the surfaces of glaciers, known as supraglacial lakes, are often created during the melt season, and typically last from early June to late August. Co-author Professor Alun Hubbard of Aberystwyth University studied these lakes and found that many empty in just a matter of hours, when hydrofracturing opens up water-filled crevasses, resulting in huge amounts of water entering and flooding the subglacial environment. In warmer years, these high-discharge drainage events are expected to become even more frequent.

"Not only is the ice sheet sensitive to a changing climate, but extreme meteorological events, such as heavy rainfall and heat waves, can also have a large effect on the rate of ice loss," said Dr Christoffersen. "The soft sediment gets weaker as it tries to soak up more water, making it less resistant, so that the ice above moves faster. The Greenland Ice Sheet is not nearly as stable as we think."

While complete loss of all ice in Greenland is judged to be extremely unlikely during this century, the record extent of surface melting in the past decade clearly shows that the ice sheet is responding to Earth's changing climate.

In this study, the researchers used two different approaches. First, they used the total amount of surface runoff as a means to drive their model, but the outcome from this experiment was inconsistent with observations. They then used only water stored temporarily in supraglacial lakes on the ice sheet's surface. They found that although only a small fraction of the total amount of meltwater produced on the surface is stored in supraglacial lakes, the high magnitude and frequency of lake drainage events causes the ice sheet to immediately accelerate as observed.

Having accurately reproduced the hydrological response of ice flow along the western margin of the ice sheet, the authors were able to subsequently evaluate the sensitivity of flow to warmer climatic conditions, resulting in more meltwater on the surface. This showed stable annual flow under present-day conditions, but a more vulnerable ice sheet in warmer years when more meltwater reaches the bed via frequent high-discharge drainage events, not only because of the emptying of supraglacial lakes such as the ones currently observed, but also because daily variations in melt volume will become equally large. The study concludes that there is a limit on how much water can be stored in the soft ground beneath the Greenland Ice Sheet. This makes it sensitive to climate change as well as to increased frequency of short-lived, but extreme, meteorological events including rainfall and heat waves.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by University of Cambridge. The original story is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Journal Reference:
1.M. Bougamont, P. Christoffersen, A. L, Hubbard, A. A. Fitzpatrick, S. H. Doyle, S. P. Carter. Sensitive response of the Greenland Ice Sheet to surface melt drainage over a soft bed. Nature Communications, 2014; 5: 5052 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms6052
 
So how are we doing on the world stage on fighting climate change?
Our "dear leader" gave a speech telling use we are world leaders at such things.
Here is one report card......
[h=2]The Climate Change Performance Index 2014[/h][h=3]A comparison of the 58 top CO2 emitting nations[/h]


http://germanwatch.org/en/download/8599.pdf

Hint: bottom of the list... 58th out of 58
Seems to me someone has a creditability problem....
Oh look we have pandas...
 
Happy Anniversary: 1 October Marks 18 Years Without Global Warming Trend
Anthony Watts / 11 hours ago October 1, 2014
Via The GWPF Global Warming Pause Comes Of Age

The Earth’s temperature has “plateaued” and there has been no global warming for at least the last 18 years, says Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at the University of Alabama/Huntsville. “That’s basically a fact. There’s not much to comment on,” Christy said when CNSNews.com asked him to remark on the lack of global warming for nearly two decades as of October 1st. –Barbara Hollingsworth, CBS News, 30 September 2014
 
Happy Anniversary: 1 October Marks 18 Years Without Global Warming Trend
Anthony Watts / 11 hours ago October 1, 2014
Via The GWPF Global Warming Pause Comes Of Age

The Earth’s temperature has “plateaued” and there has been no global warming for at least the last 18 years, says Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at the University of Alabama/Huntsville. “That’s basically a fact. There’s not much to comment on,” Christy said when CNSNews.com asked him to remark on the lack of global warming for nearly two decades as of October 1st. –Barbara Hollingsworth, CBS News, 30 September 2014


I hate quoting crap but what the heck.

Here ya go, a site that not only keeps to the science but allows free and open discourse from deniers and skeptics and answers questions they raise.

Lots better than anything from Watts and his ilk as they tend to look at local areas mostly when they cherry-pick items hoping you'll forget it's GLOBAL in nature.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm


Take care.
 
John Raymond Christy
Born California, USA
Nationality American
Fields Atmospheric Science
Institutions University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH)
Alma mater University of Illinois
Thesis An investigation of the general circulation associated with extreme anomalies in hemispheric mean atmospheric mass (1987)
Doctoral advisor Kevin Trenberth
Known for UAH satellite data
Notable awards 1991 Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, NASA; 1996 Special Award, American Meteorological Society
Spouse Babs (Joslin) Christy
Website
nsstc.uah.edu/users/john.christy/
External images
Portrait of Christy
John Raymond Christy is a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) whose chief interests are satellite remote sensing of global climate and global climate change. He is best known, jointly with Roy Spencer, for the first successful development of a satellite temperature record.






I hate quoting crap but what the heck.

Here ya go, a site that not only keeps to the science but allows free and open discourse from deniers and skeptics and answers questions they raise.

Lots better than anything from Watts and his ilk as they tend to look at local areas mostly when they cherry-pick items hoping you'll forget it's GLOBAL in nature.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm


Take care.
 
Happy Anniversary: 1 October Marks 18 Years Without Global Warming Trend
Anthony Watts / 11 hours ago October 1, 2014
Via The GWPF Global Warming Pause Comes Of Age

The Earth’s temperature has “plateaued” and there has been no global warming for at least the last 18 years, says Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at the University of Alabama/Huntsville. “That’s basically a fact. There’s not much to comment on,” Christy said when CNSNews.com asked him to remark on the lack of global warming for nearly two decades as of October 1st. –Barbara Hollingsworth, CBS News, 30 September 2014

OBD why don't you check the data and the trend for yourself with this website.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
You can use any data set you want and pick start and end dates you like.
Heck you can even use some of the dates your side likes to use and see what it is.
After you reproduce your numbers try putting in the year before or lets say 10 years before that and look at the trend. The data in RSS goes back to 1978 why don't they include that in there Op-ed? Do some science for yourself. Critical thinking on your own ...... don't let these guy's think for you. Ask yourself why do they only want to use RSS data? Why not use data from all the other data sets? Would that be an inconvenient truth? Your side cracks me up with your cherry picked data to try cloud the truth with doubt...... But then again that's the point isn't it. Pretend there is some doubt when there is none..... There must be some truth that those walls of fishing gear at the stores are there to catch anglers not fish...... Don't you sometimes feel like you are taking the bait that these folks are trolling with? Critical thinking..... use it or lose it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/walruses-forced-ashore-en-masse-as-sea-ice-melts-1.2783672



Walruses forced ashore en masse as sea ice melts

This year's mass gathering is the biggest since the first was spotted in 2007

The Associated Press Posted: Oct 01, 2014 10:10 AM ET| Last Updated: Oct 01, 2014 3:32 PM ET





RAW: Walrus herd on Alaska beach




RAW: Walrus herd on Alaska beach 1:05






319 shares





Facebook






Twitter






Reddit






Google






Share






Email






Related Stories

■Researchers studying Pacific walrus population
■Walrus spotted sunning near Portugal Cove-St. Philip's
■Polar vortex chills linked to melting sea ice
■Arctic sea ice loss could threaten even land animals
■Walruses forced ashore by ice melt



Pacific walrus that can't find sea ice for resting in Arctic waters are coming ashore in record numbers on a beach in northwest Alaska.

An estimated 35,000 walrus were photographed Saturday about 5 miles north of Point Lay, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Point Lay is an Inupiat Eskimo village 480 kilometres southwest of Barrow and 1,100 kilometres northwest of Anchorage.

The enormous gathering was spotted during NOAA's annual arctic marine mammal aerial survey, spokeswoman Julie Speegle said by email. The survey is conducted with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the agency that oversees offshore lease sales.

Possible stampede deaths

Andrea Medeiros, spokeswoman for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said walrus were first spotted Sept. 13 and have been moving on and off shore. Observers last week saw about 50 carcasses on the beach from animals that may have been killed in a stampede, and the agency was assembling a necropsy team to determine their cause of death.

Pacific Walrus
In this aerial photo taken on Sept. 23, 2014 and released by NOAA, some 1500 walrus are gather on the northwest coast of Alaska. (The Associated Press)

"They're going to get them out there next week," she said.

The gathering of walrus on shore is a phenomenon that has accompanied the loss of summer sea ice as the climate has warmed.

Pacific walrus spend winters in the Bering Sea. Females give birth on sea ice and use ice as a diving platform to reach snails, clams and worms on the shallow continental shelf.

Unlike seals, walrus cannot swim indefinitely and must rest. They use their tusks to "haul out," or pull themselves onto ice or rocks.

As temperatures warm in summer, the edge of the sea ice recedes north. Females and their young ride the edge of the sea ice into the Chukchi Sea, the body of water north of the Bering Strait.

In recent years, sea ice has receded north beyond shallow continental shelf waters and into Arctic Ocean water, where depths exceed three kilometres and walrus cannot dive to the bottom.

First mass gathering seen in 2007

Walrus in large numbers were first spotted on the U.S. side of the Chukchi Sea in 2007. They returned in 2009, and in 2011, scientists estimated 30,000 walruses along one kilometre of beach near Point Lay.

Young animals are vulnerable to stampedes when a group gathers nearly shoulder-to-shoulder on a beach. Stampedes can be triggered by a polar bear, human hunter or low-flying airplane. The carcasses of more than 130 mostly young walruses were counted after a stampede in September 2009 at Alaska's Icy Cape.

The World Wildlife Fund said walrus have also been gathering in large groups on the Russian side of the Chukchi Sea.

"It's another remarkable sign of the dramatic environmental conditions changing as the result of sea ice loss," said Margaret Williams, managing director of the group's Arctic program, by phone from Washington, D.C. "The walruses are telling us what the polar bears have told us and what many indigenous people have told us in the high Arctic, and that is that the Arctic environment is changing extremely rapidly and it is time for the rest of the world to take notice and also to take action to address the root causes of climate change."

This summer, the sea ice's annual low point was the sixth smallest since satellite monitoring began in 1979.

Pacific Walrus
Some 35,000 walrus were spotted on shore near Point Lay, Alaska, this past Saturday. during NOAA's annual Arctic marine mammal aerial survey. The gathering of walrus on shore is a phenomenon that has accompanied the loss of summer sea ice as the climate has warmed. (Corey Accardo/Associated Press)

© The Associated Press, 2014
 
Walrus Key Points:
Zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford: Mass haulouts of Pacific walrus and stampede deaths are not new, not due to low ice cover - 'The attempts by WWF and others to link this event to global warming is self-serving nonsense that has nothing to do with science...this is blatant nonsense and those who support or encourage this interpretation are misinforming the public.'
'The Pacific walrus remains abundant, numbering at least 200,000 by some accounts, double the number in the 1950s'
'Dating back to at least the 1604, there have been reports of large walrus gatherings or haulouts.' - 'Walrus haulouts are not unusual and have long been recognized and islands have been set aside for such gatherings.'
Walruses known to migrate away from ice in late summer & fall: “In the non-reproductive season (late summer and fall) walruses tend to migrate away from the ice and form massive aggregations of tens of thousands of individuals on rocky beaches or outcrops.”
AP’s own reporting debunks unprecedented walrus claims: The AP reported on 40,000 walruses in a haulout just 7 years ago in a single location.
Walrus stampede deaths drop dramatically from 3000 in 2007 to 50 in 2014?: AP: 2007: ‘3,000 walruses die in stampedes tied to Climate’
Walrus stampede deaths benefit polar bears: 'Stampeded remains of 100 walruses fed up to 185 polar bears
 
Source: Skeptical Science Forums
Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook (who apparently pretends to be a ****). It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted. The abuse and censorship does not pertain to simply any dissenting commentator there but to highly credentialed and respected climate scientists as well; Dr. Pielke Sr. has unsuccessfully attempted to engage in discussions there only to be childishly taunted and censored, while Dr. Michaels has been dishonestly quoted and smeared. The irony of the site's oxymoronic name "Skeptical Science" is that the site is not skeptical of even the most extreme alarmist positions.

John Cook is now desperately trying to cover up his background that he was employed as a cartoonist for over a decade with no prior employment history in academia or climate science.

Thanks to the Wayback Machine we can reveal what his website originally said,

"I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist" - John Cook, Skeptical Science



A link from the Skeptical Science "About" page originally went to his cartoonist page,

"John Cook: A cartoonist working from home in Brisbane, Australia" - SEV



It is very important for Mr. Cook to keep up this facade, as once people learn of his lack of credentials and scientifically worthless employment history they are unlikely to take his website seriously no matter how he desperately pads his resume. As opposed to the highly credentialed climate scientists his staff harassed and censored;

Patrick J. Michaels, A.B. Biological Sciences, University of Chicago (1971); S.M. Biology, University of Chicago (1975); Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison (1979); Research and Project Assistant, Center for Climatic Research, University of Wisconsin (1976-1979); Assistant Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1980-1986); Virginia State Climatologist (1980-2007); President, Central Virginia Chapter, American Meteorological Society (1986-1987); Executive Board, American Association of State Climatologists (1986-1989); Associate Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1986-1995); President, American Association of State Climatologists (1987-1988); Chair, Committee on Applied Climatology, American Meteorological Society (1988-1999); Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies, Cato Institute (1992-Present); Visiting Scientist, Marshall Institute (1996-Present); Member, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Member, Association of American Geographers; Member, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society; Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1996-Present); Contributor and Expert Reviewer, IPCC (1990, 1992, 1995, 2001, 2007)

Roger A. Pielke Sr., B.A. Mathematics, Towson State College (1968); M.S. Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University (1969); Ph.D. Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University (1973); Research Assistant, Pennsylvania State University (1968); National Science Foundation Trainee, Pennsylvania State University (1968-1971); Research Meteorologist, Experimental Meteorology Laboratory, NOAA (1971-1974); Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1974-1977); Distinguished Authorship Award, NOAA (1974); Leroy Meisinger Award, American Meteorological Society (1977); Associate Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1978-1981); Chief Editor, Monthly Weather Review (1981-1985); Fellow, American Meteorological Society (1982); Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University (1982-1985); Abell New Faculty Research and Graduate Program Award (1984); Deputy Director, Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (1985-1988); Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University (1985-2000), Abell Research Faculty Award (1987/1988); Researcher of the Year, Colorado State University Research Foundation (1993), Pennsylvania State Centennial Fellow (1996); Alumni of the Year, Pennsylvania State College of Earth and Mineral Sciences (1999); Colorado State Climatologist (1999-2006); Engineering Dean's Council Award, Colorado State University (2000); Adjunct Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Duke University (2003-2006); Fellow, American Geophysical Union (2004); Visiting Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona (2004); Senior Research Scientist, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado-Boulder (2005-Present); Senior Research Associate, Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado-Boulder (2005-Present); Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University (2007-Present)

References:
Refuting 104 Talking Points from Skeptical Science (PDF) (28pgs) (Lubos Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physics, March 29, 2010)
Skepticalscience – Rewriting History (Shub Niggurath Climate, October 10, 2011)
Roger Pielke Sr at the SS.com: A dark day in the climate science debate (Shub Niggurath Climate, September 18, 2011)
Skepticalscience.com quote surgery on Pat Michaels (Shub Niggurath Climate, January 18, 2012)
My Interactions With Skeptical Science – A Failed Attempt (So Far) For Constructive Dialog (Roger A. Pielke Sr., September 17, 2011)
Final Comments On My Interaction With Skeptical Science (Roger A. Pielke Sr., September 21, 2011)
Response To Skeptical Science On A Series Of Weblog Posts (Roger A. Pielke Sr., October 25, 2011)
A Response to Skeptical Science's "Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data" (Patrick J. Michaels, January 17, 2012)


Update 1: In March of 2012, the climate alarmist website Skeptical Science had their forums "hacked" and the contents posted online. What was revealed is simply astonishing,

Skeptical Science: The Censorship of Poptech
"The impact of that ban on PopTech was to silence him." - [Skeptical Science]
Skeptical Science: "Ding dong, the witch is dead"
"Conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart is dead at 43" "Ding dong, the witch is dead..." - John Hartz [Skeptical Science], March 2, 2012
Skeptical Science: "[W]e're all a bunch of leftists"
"It's official, we're all a bunch of leftists" - John Cook [Skeptical Science], August 26, 2011
Skeptical Science: The Partnership with Al Gore
"This morning, had a long skype call with a guy working with Al Gore's Climate Reality Project. [...] He brought up the possibility of a partnership. [...] an exciting opportunity and another vindication of what we're doing" - John Cook [Skeptical Science], September 27, 2011
Skeptical Science: From Al Gore to Al Jazeera
"Al Jazeera want to feature SkS as the Site of the Week... Am sending them some info and pics now." - John Cook [Skeptical Science], September 28, 2011
Skeptical Science: Too Inaccurate for Joe Romm
"Just got this email from Joe Romm: You must do more post vetting. More errors are creeping into posts and it will start making people like me wary of using them." - John Cook [Skeptical Science], December 2, 2011
Skeptical Science: "Drown Them Out"
"Badgersouth [John Hartz] and I were just discussing the potential of setting up a coordinated "Crusher Crew" where we could pull our collective time and knowledge together in order to pounce on overly vocal deniers on various comments sections of blogs and news articles." - Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011


Update 2: On August 6, 2013, a hidden image folder was found on the Skeptical Science forums that contained uploaded images of John Cook and Dana Nuccetelli photoshopped as Nazis.


Source: Skeptical Science Forums
 
Bad science: Global-warming deniers are a liability to the Conservative Cause

Jonathan Kay is comment pages editor of the National Post. In addition, he is a columnist for the National Post op-ed page, and a blogger for the National Post's FullComment web site

Have you heard about the “growing number” of eminent scientists who reject the theory that man-made greenhouse gases are increasing the earth’s temperature? It’s one of those factoids that, for years, has been casually dropped into the opening paragraphs of conservative manifestos against climate-change treaties and legislation. A web site maintained by the office of a U.S. Senator has for years instructed us that a “growing number of scientists” are becoming climate-change “skeptics.” This year, the chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation gave a speech praising the “growing number of distinguished scientists [who are] challenging the conventional wisdom with alternative theories and peer reviewed research.” In this newspaper, a columnist recently described the “growing skepticism about the theory of man-made climate change.” Surely, the conventional wisdom is on the cusp of being overthrown entirely: Another colleague proclaimed that we are approaching “the church of global warming’s Galileo moment.”
Fine-sounding rhetoric — but all of it nonsense. In a new article published in the Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences, a group of scholars from Stanford University, the University of Toronto and elsewhere provide a statistical breakdown of the opinions of the world’s most prominent climate experts. Their conclusion: The group that is skeptical of the evidence of man-made global warming “comprises only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers in the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200, excluding researchers present in both groups … This result closely agrees with expert surveys, indicating that [about] 97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of [man-made global warming].”
How has this tiny 2-3% sliver of fringe opinion been reinvented as a perpetually “growing” share of the scientific community? Most climate-change deniers (or “skeptics,” or whatever term one prefers) tend to inhabit militantly right-wing blogs and other Internet echo chambers populated entirely by other deniers. In these electronic enclaves — where a smattering of citations to legitimate scientific authorities typically is larded up with heaps of add-on commentary from pundits, economists and YouTube jesters who haven’t any formal training in climate sciences — it becomes easy to swallow the fallacy that the whole world, including the respected scientific community, is jumping on the denier bandwagon.
This is a phenomenon that should worry not only environmentalists, but also conservatives themselves: The conviction that global warming is some sort of giant intellectual fraud now has become a leading bullet point within mainstream North American conservatism; and so has come to bathe the whole movement in its increasingly crankish, conspiratorial glow.
Conservatives often pride themselves on their hard-headed approach to public-policy — in contradistinction to liberals, who generally are typecast as fuzzy-headed utopians. Yet when it comes to climate change, many conservatives I know will assign credibility to any stray piece of junk science that lands in their inbox … so long as it happens to support their own desired conclusion. (One conservative columnist I know formed her skeptical views on global warming based on testimonials she heard from novelist Michael Crichton.) The result is farcical: Impressionable conservatives who lack the numeracy skills to perform long division or balance their checkbooks feel entitled to spew elaborate proofs purporting to demonstrate how global warming is in fact caused by sunspots or flatulent farm animals. Or they will go on at great length about how “climategate” has exposed the whole global-warming phenomenon as a charade — despite the fact that a subsequent investigation exculpated research investigators from the charge that they had suppressed temperature data. (In fact, “climategate” was overhyped from the beginning, since the scientific community always had other historical temperature data sets at its disposal — that maintained by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, most notably — entirely independent of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, where the controversy emerged.)
Let me be clear: Climate-change denialism does not comprise a conspiracy theory, per se: Those aforementioned 2% of eminent scientists prove as much. I personally know several denialists whom I generally consider to be intelligent and thoughtful. But the most militant denialists do share with conspiracists many of the same habits of mind. Oxford University scholar Steve Clarke and Brian Keeley of Washington University have defined conspiracy theories as those worldviews that trace important events to a secretive, nefarious cabal; and whose proponents consistently respond to contrary facts not by modifying their hypothesis, but instead by insisting on the existence of ever-wider circles of high-level conspirators controlling most or all parts of society. This describes, more or less, how radicalized warming deniers treat the subject of their obsession: They see global warming as a Luddite plot hatched by Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and Al Gore to destroy industrial society. And whenever some politician, celebrity or international organization expresses support for the all-but-unanimous view of the world’s scientific community, they inevitably will respond with a variation of “Ah, so they’ve gotten to them, too.”
In support of this paranoid approach, the denialists typically will rely on stray bits of discordant information — an incorrect reference in a UN report, a suspicious-seeming “climategate” email, some hypocrisy or other from a bien-pensant NGO type — to argue that the whole theory is an intellectual house of cards. In these cases, one can’t help but be reminded of the folks who point out the fluttering American flag in the moon-landing photos, or the “umbrella man” from the Zapruder film of JFK’s assassination.
In part, blame for all this lies with the Internet, whose blog-from-the-hip ethos has convinced legions of pundits that their view on highly technical matters counts as much as peer-reviewed scientific literature. But there is something deeper at play, too — a basic psychological instinct that public-policy scholars refer to as the “cultural cognition thesis,” described in a recently published academic paper as the observed principle that “individuals tend to form perceptions of risk that reflect and reinforce one or another idealized vision of how society should be organized … Thus, generally speaking, persons who subscribe to individualistic values tend to dismiss claims of environmental risks, because acceptance of such claims implies the need to regulate markets, commerce and other outlets for individual strivings.”
In simpler words, too many of us treat science as subjective — something we customize to reduce cognitive dissonance between what we think and how we live.
In the case of global warming, this dissonance is especially traumatic for many conservatives, because they have based their whole worldview on the idea that unfettered capitalism — and the asphalt-paved, gas-guzzling consumer culture it has spawned — is synonymous with both personal fulfillment and human advancement. The global-warming hypothesis challenges that fundamental dogma, perhaps fatally.
The appropriate intellectual response to that challenge — finding a way to balance human consumption with responsible environmental stewardship — is complicated and difficult. It will require developing new technologies, balancing carbon-abatement programs against other (more cost-effective) life-saving projects such as disease-prevention, and — yes — possibly increasing the economic cost of carbon-fuel usage through some form of direct or indirect taxation. It is one of the most important debates of our time. Yet many conservatives have made themselves irrelevant in it by simply cupping their hands over their ears and screaming out imprecations against Al Gore.
Rants and slogans may help conservatives deal with the emotional problem of cognitive dissonance. But they aren’t the building blocks of a serious ideological movement. And the impulse toward denialism must be fought if conservatism is to prosper in a century when environmental issues will assume an ever greater profile on this increasingly hot, parched, crowded planet. Otherwise, the movement will come to be defined — and discredited — by its noisiest cranks and conspiracists.
 
Science, not politics

Of all the scientists who are labelled "deniers" because they don't support the orthodoxy of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, none comes in for more vilification than Eigil Friis-Christensen. For understandable reasons.

BY NATIONAL POST APRIL 23, 2007


Of all the scientists who are labelled "deniers" because they don't support the orthodoxy of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, none comes in for more vilification than Eigil Friis-Christensen. For understandable reasons.

Dr. Friis-Christensen questions the very premise that man-made activities explain most of the global warming that we see, and through his work he has convinced much of an entire scientific discipline to explore his line of inquiry. With his 1991 paper in Science, showing a startling correlation between global warming and the activities of the sun, Dr. Friis-Christensen unleashed a wave of related research by solar scientists seeking to learn the mechanisms through which solar activity may influence climate on Earth. Thanks largely to his early efforts, and ongoing efforts, too, a growing proportion of the world's solar scientists no longer place man at the centre of the climate-change universe.

Dr. Friis-Christensen's interest in climate change predates the Kyoto Treaty of 1995, it predates the Rio Conference in 1992 that led to Kyoto, it even predates the first report in 1990 of the IPCC, the body spearheading the vast majority of the climate-change research now underway.

"My interest dates back to an extreme solar storm that occurred in August, 1972," he explains. "I was in Greenland, on my first assignment in my new job as geophysicist at the Danish Meteorological Institute, setting up a chain of magnetometer stations on the west coast."

Dr. Friis-Christensen remembers lying in his tent and "watching the ink pens of my recorder going so wild that they nearly tore the paper chart apart -- we had no digital recording at that time -- and I wondered whether such big events could also have an influence in the lower atmosphere, on weather and climate.

"That storm cut off my contact to the outside world for nine days -- all radio communication was blacked out -- so I had lots of time to reflect on the enormity of the forces at play."

Dr. Friis-Christensen would soon discover he had a soulmate in his reflections, his mentor and a division head at the institute, Knud Lassen, a pioneer in research into the aurora borealis. They followed developments in the field, even gave lectures on the subject, which was then topical, although not for the reasons we're familiar with today -- in the mid-1970s, climate scientists feared global cooling.

Yet for both scientists, the interest was more a hobby than a formal area of study -- until 1989, when Dr. Lassen, 68 years old and nearing retirement, decided to cap his career by pursuing the hunch they had long held. Dr. Friis- Christensen needed no persuading to join him on his quest. Two years later, their path breaking study was published, though without fanfare. Global cooling had receded from public memory and global warming was not yet a hot topic.

That soon changed, with the growing role of the newly created IPCC.

Upon the IPCC's creation, with its mandate to investigate the causes of climate change, Dr. Friis-Christensen was hopeful of advances in solving one of the scientific passions of his life. To participate in the IPCC's quest for answers, he travelled to its January, 1992, meeting in Guangzhou, China, as part of the Danish delegation. By then, he had succeeded Dr. Lassen to become head of the institute's geophysics division.

But to his astonishment, and despite the recent publication of his Science article, the IPCC refused to consider the sun's influence on Earth's climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The scientists at the IPCC had decided that man-made causes and man-made causes alone deserved their attention. But ignoring the potential role of the sun didn't make it go away, especially since Dr. Friis-Christensen and other solar scientists refused to abandon their research.

Then the attacks on Dr. Friis-Christensen's credibility began.

His 1991 study had errors, his detractors stated. His 1995 study only made it worse, others chimed in. He fabricated data, people whispered. A recent article in the U.K.'s Guardian newspaper by IPCC partisan George Monbiot well represents the tenor of the attacks:

"A paper published in the journal Eos in 2004 reveals that the 'agreement' [between temperatures and solar activity that Friis-Christensen's 1991 study found] was the result of 'incorrect handling of the physical data.' The real data for recent years show the opposite: that the length of the sunspot cycle has declined, while temperatures have risen. When this error was exposed, Friis- Christensen and his co-author published a new paper, purporting to produce similar results.

"But this too turned out to be an artefact of mistakes -- in this case, in their arithmetic.

"So Friis-Christensen and another author developed yet another means of demonstrating that the sun is responsible, claiming to have discovered a remarkable agreement between cosmic radiation influenced by the sun and global cloud cover ... . But, yet again, the method was exposed as faulty. They had been using satellite data which did not in fact measure global cloud cover.

"A paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics shows that, when the right data are used, a correlation is not found."

How much of this litany in the Guardian demonstrates actual errors by Dr. Friis-Christensen? In truth, none of it. Virtually all of the criticisms of Dr. Friis- Christensen, published and republished willy-nilly, stem from a lone advisor to the Danish government's Ministry of the Energy with scant research credentials -- he even admits that the government hired him largely for his communications skill.

There is no arithmetic error in Dr. Friis-Christensen's studies. Remarkably, his critics attributed someone else's error to him, and then kept doggedly repeating their assertion. Neither are there errors in methodology, although this charge likewise gets repeated without foundation. Neither should it be surprising that different studies of different aspects of solar behaviour would yield anomalies. It is through such exceptions that science proves the rule.

Do the epithets work? With the uninformed, they work a great deal. With the vast majority of his peers, the attacks more represent irritants, noise that obfuscates the political debate but not what counts -- the science. Because of his scientific rigour, Dr. Friis-Christensen has won a citation from the Journal of Geophysical Research of the American Geophysical Union for "Excellence in refereeing" and he is sought after by the world's leading agencies, who have elevated him to the top ranks of his profession.

He now chairs the Danish Space Consortium, heads a European Space Agency mission advisory group, and is vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy. Many of the world's most prestigious space-related research institutions -- the European Organization for Nuclear Research in Geneva, the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, and the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia among them --are now building on the work that Dr. Friis-Christensen set in train.

Bit by bit, they are putting the pieces of the climate puzzle together, slowly learning more and more about the amazingly complex relationships among solar and cosmic forces, on the one hand, and the array of forces on Earth.

Where this slow, methodical brand of solar science will ultimately lead, no one can yet say. Such uncertainty does not characterize the brand of climate science practiced by the IPCC.

LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com

- - - - Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation.

CV OF A DENIER:

Eigil Friis-Christensen is director of the Danish National Space Centre and a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, where he serves on the panel on space weather. He is also a member of a NASA working group and a member of the Earth-science advisory committee of the European Space Agency. The author or co-author of some 100 peer-reviewed articles, he has been chair of the scientific advisory group of the Institute of Space Physics. He holds a Magisterkonferens (PhD equivalent) in geophysics from the University of Copenhagen.
 
http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/2014/09/27/2014-09-27-1/

Failing the Climate Challenge?

Saturday, September 27, 2014 | Categories:

Listen: http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/2014/09/27/2014-09-27-1/#
Download MP3: http://cbc.ca/quirks/media/2014-2015/qq-2014-09-27_01.mp3

The Climate Summit this week may not lead to international agreements, but local efforts are showing how to reduce emissions.

This past week, world leaders were invited to the UN in New York for a Climate Summit, at which Secretary General Ban Ki-moon hoped to generate new momentum for an international agreement to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. However, recent negotiations have not produced much in the way of significant commitments by the major producers - the US, China, India and Russia, and global emissions continue to rise. Dr. Mark Jaccard specializes in sustainable energy and climate policy in the School of Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University. He thinks chances of a major international agreement to control emissions in the near term are not great. On the other hand, he suggests that there are some very promising initiatives happening at the local and regional level, some within Canada, that demonstrate that regulation, appropriate economic policies, and sustainable technologies can have an impact on emissions. He suggests that this has removed some of the familiar excuses for inaction, including the notion that emissions reductions are not practical and will have dire economic consequences.

Related Links

•UN Climate Change Summit

CBC coverage of the Climate Change Summit:
•Game Changer for Global Warming http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/un-climate-summit-a-game-changer-for-global-warming-1.2775281
•Four things to know about the talks http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/un-climate-summit-4-things-to-know-about-the-talks-1.2774110
•Obama urges the world http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/obama-urges-world-to-follow-u-s-lead-on-climate-change-1.2775037
•Emissions break records http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/g...k-record-ahead-of-un-climate-summit-1.2773884

Click here for the rest of Quirks & Quarks for Sept. 27, 2014
http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/episode/2014/09/27/2014-09-27/
 
You guys are so funny.
OBD speaking of "funny": why is it that in every case where there is a potential or demonstrated effect of climate change posted on here - you want to have another explanation of what is causing the effect other than the most plausible explanation, and then try to find ways to dismiss all the available science?

Have you ever heard of the term: "weight of evidence"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Weight of evidence.
That is YOUR opinion, and you are allowed it.
I on the other hand am allowed mine.
MAN MADE global warming is not one of those. Global warming, which has happened before i believe.
Man screws up lots of things. I note with interest the lack of discussion on the effect that sports fishing has on herring.
I see no empathy towards other people in the world who still live in hovels and cook over open fires.
Why are they not allowed to have all the things you have?
The governments provincial and federal are not very concerned and the people who voted them in term after term do not seem concerned.


OBD speaking of "funny": why is it that in every case where there is a potential or demonstrated effect of climate change posted on here - you want to have another explanation of what is causing the effect other than the most plausible explanation, and then try to find ways to dismiss all the available science?

Have you ever heard of the term: "weight of evidence"?
 
NASA chief silenced

The head of NASA -- the National Aeronautical and Space Association--is "an idiot" and "in denial." He is also "surprisingly naive" and "a fool." With his judgment and competence so lacking, demands abound for his resignation as head of the largest and most accomplished science agency in the world.


The head of NASA -- the National Aeronautical and Space Association--is "an idiot" and "in denial." He is also "surprisingly naive" and "a fool." With his judgment and competence so lacking, demands abound for his resignation as head of the largest and most accomplished science agency in the world.

Those comments and others in the past week have come from scientists shocked to learn that NASA chief Michael Griffin thinks differently than they about global warming. Among the most shocked is one of Dr. Griffin's own employees, James Hansen, a top climate scientist who "almost fell off my chair" when he learned that his research hadn't convinced his boss. "It's an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement," he told ABC News, referring to an interview of Dr. Griffin on National Public Radio. "It indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change."

Some might think Dr. Griffin is entitled to think for himself. Apart from his PhD in aerospace engineering, he holds five masters degrees, he is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and the International Academy of Astronautics, he manages a US$1.1-billion climate-research budget and was unanimously confirmed to head NASA by the United States Senate.

But no. He is either "totally clueless" or "a deep anti-global warming ideologue," concludes Jerry Mahlman, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in a statement similar to many.

Dr. Griffin's radio interview drew this storm of controversy after he was asked about the seriousness of global warming. He replied by saying, "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had, and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change."

Dr. Griffin doesn't dispute that the Earth has been warming. He does dispute that we can -- or even should -- do anything about it. "First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings, where and when, are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now, is the best climate for all other human beings. I'm, I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."

Dr. Griffin's interview was prompted by criticisms from environmental journalist Greg Easterbrook, who charged that Dr. Griffin is wasting NASA's time and money on misguided space exploration projects, such as a manned mission to Mars and the establishment of a permanent base on

the moon. Instead, Easterbrook argued, Dr. Griffin should be exercising his right to free speech, coming out against misguided NASA policies and spending more on legitimate priorities, such as greater global-warming research.

The Easterbrook charge led National Public Radio to ask Dr. Griffin why he wasn't "battling [global warming] as an army might battle an enemy." Dr. Griffin's response: "Nowhere in NASA's authorization, which of course governs what we do, is there anything at all telling us that we should take actions to effect climate change in either -- in one way or another.... NASA is not an agency chartered to, quote, 'battle climate change.' "

More howls from critics, who believe Dr. Griffin should be using his discretion to skew NASA's mission away from its core purpose -- and away from his fiduciary responsibilities to his organization -- and toward the service of fighting climate change.

To which Dr. Griffin responds, not unreasonably, "The question is, in a democratic society, who gets to choose. Unfortunately for Greg, it's not him."

Unfortunately for society, Greg Easterbrook happened to be wrong in another claim: that Dr. Griffin hadn't lost his right to speak out. For all intents and purposes, he has. Within days of the uproar, Dr. Griffin decided that he should not have discussed "an issue which has become far more political than technical." In an apology to his staff, he said, "I feel badly that I caused this amount of controversy over something like this," adding that, "it would have been well for me to have stayed out of it."

Dr. Griffin is now one more scientist who will not dispute the existence of a "scientific consensus on global warming."

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and

Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation.

www.urban-renaissance.org Email: LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com

---

CV OF A DENIER

Prior to heading NASA, Michael Griffin served as space department head at Johns Hopkins University's applied physics laboratory in Laurel, Md. He was previously president and chief operating officer of In-Q-Tel, Inc. and chief executive of Orbital Sciences Corporation's Magellan Systems division. Earlier, Dr. Griffin served as chief engineer and as associate administrator for exploration at NASA, and as deputy for technology at the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization. He is the lead author of more than two dozen technical papers, as well as the textbook Space Vehicle Design. He earned his doctorate at the Michael Griffin University of Maryland.

© (c) CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc.



E-mail this Article
Print this Article
Share this Article
 
OBD

There is a difference between opinion and science when it comes to Climate Change.
You can use science to argue opinion but you can not use opinion to argue science.

So far most on here are linking to science papers or reviews of science papers.
You seem to link to opinions of wacky people that seem not interested in finding solutions to our problems.
Why is that?..... Don't you think we could tread a little lighter on this earth? What is so bad about clean energy that you would put coal, oil and gas ahead of it? What if your theory is wrong, what is your plan B. You do know that we can't go back and start all over as this is a one way trip. Once we pump up the air with CO2 we can't just remove it like it's some kind of failed experiment.

Please spare us the "people in the world who still live in hovels and cook over open fires." as your reason to keep burning fossil fuels. It doesn't wash as an argument and frankly using that as an excuse is below you. It has been shown that burning fossil fuels has major effects on the health of everyone in the world and if you don't believe that have a look at China. How is that working out from them? How would you like your grandkids to live in a place like that.
ap_china_beijing_air_pollution_jt_130113_wg.jpeg
 
[tciQts-8Cxo] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tciQts-8Cxo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top