Trees growing faster

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Mark,
we know that atmospheric CO2 is growing since we started this experiment...and trees are growing faster as a result, but what on Earth makes you think that humans can make global changes ?
.

If you notice, I have never made this claim. In fact, I have stated that we do indeed affect the planet, the question is how much. The current "science" on carbon is a joke. And why is it that water vapor, responsible for the vast majority of GH effect, is ignored? Carbon has a tiny effect in comparison.

Quote:
So, let's see, glaciers worldwide are showing a drastic net loss and retreat because the world is cooling?

How is ice in both poles growing if the world is getting hotter? And not all are glaciers are shrinking, some are growing.
And we keep learning:
Quote:
From the results, they constructed a glacial timeline for the past 7,000 years and compared it against historic records from the Swiss Alps and other places north of the equator.

They found that within that timeframe, the glaciers around Mount Cook, New Zealand's highest peak, reached their largest extent about 6,500 years ago, when the Swiss Alps and Scandinavia were relatively warm.

That's about 6,000 years before northern glaciers hit their Holocene peak during the Little Ice Age, between 1300 and 1860 AD.

That finding was a surprise to some scientists who assumed that the northern cold phase happened globally.

The record in New Zealand shows other disparities that point to regional climate variations in both hemispheres

http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/20090502/981/tsc-glaciers-in-southern-hemisphere-are.html
And:
Quote:
Despite the recent growth, most glaciers in the nation are still smaller than they were in 1982. However, Elvehøy says that the glaciers were even smaller during the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ of the Viking Era, prior to around the year 1350.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/27/glaciers-in-norway-alaska-growing-again/
Strange, that was long before our "carbon experiment."

 

[MarkC]

You really should find other sources.
Net growth of glaciers worldwide is negative, and has been for years.

http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/mbb10/sum07.html

 

[Tempest]

Even this pro-GW site says some are growing:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm

 

[MarkC]

Some = a few.
Read the entire article, not just the parts you like.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
Read the entire article, not just the parts you like.

My comments are entirely within the scope of that article.

Of course, not all glaciers are retreating due to supposed GW:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070611153942.htm
Quote:
Mote and Georg Kaser, a glaciologist at the University of Innsbruck in Austria, write in American Scientist that the decline in Kilimanjaro's ice has been going on for more than a century and that most of it occurred before 1953, while evidence of atmospheric warming there before 1970 is inconclusive.

They attribute the ice decline primarily to complex interacting factors, including the vertical shape of the ice's edge, which allows it to shrink but not expand. They also cite decreased snowfall, which reduces ice buildup and determines how much energy the ice absorbs -- because the whiteness of new snow reflects more sunlight, the lack of new snow allows the ice to absorb more of the sun's energy.

Quote:
There is no evidence to support that assertion," Mote said. "It's not that it is impossible, but rather the decline is most likely associated with processes dominated by sublimation and with an energy balance dominated by solar radiation, rather than by a warmer troposphere."

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
and do the quality standards alter validity of readings?

Absolutely. The point is that the idea of the issue being "settled" is completely false. The basic data stream is FAR from reliable.



How can I rig a shock collar on you that goes off when you cherry pick stuff?

Half the story, as always.

So, you're just as "blind", right? You too must be talking 100% out of your behind, right?

Yes has to be your only valid answer.

 

[Tempest]

http://www.heartland.org/books/PDFs/SurfaceStations.pdf

Quote:
During the past few years I recruited a team of more than 650 volunteers to visually inspect and photographically
document more than 860 of these temperature stations. We were shocked by what we found.
We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads,
on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at
wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.
In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own
siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/
reflecting heat source.
In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.
It gets worse. We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report
a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice
that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government
agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher.
The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable.


Quote:
For example, consider the difference between what NOAA publishes and what NASA GISS publishes after NASA
“homogenized” the Lampasas USHCN station data, shown in Figure 22. The revised data (shown in red) are made to
appear cooler than the original data (shown in blue) in the past, making the positive slope of the trend in the last century
even steeper.

It is not only NASA GISS that does this. NOAA adjusts temperature data also, and despite the pervasive evidence that
recent changes in technology and location have introduced an upward bias in the temperature record over time,8 NOAA
has been making adjustments that increase the warming trend. Figures 23 and 24 show the trend over time of all the
adjustments applied to the USHCN data.
As illustrated in the graphs below, in simplest terms, NOAA adds a positive bias by its own “adjustment” methodology. It
is important to note that Figure 24 shows a positive adjustment of 0.5º F from 1940 to 1999. The generally agreed-upon
“global warming signal” is said to be about 1.2º F (0.7ºC) over the last century.9 NOAA’s “adjustments,” in other words,
account for nearly one-half of the agreed-upon rise in temperature in the twentieth century. The same adjustments are
applied to the GHCN global temperature dataset.


LOTS of pictures and documentation to make their point. How interesting is it that NASA prefers these ground stations.

 

[Gary Allan]

So... anything that you use, in terms of temp trends ..is equally as unreliable? You're talking out your behind too?

Good, now it's time to really investigate.

Of course, we could spend a few million $$ to assure that the temp stations are up to snuff.

 

[jmac]

I read that site about a year ago, I'm pretty sure it was posted here before by someone. But it seems pointless to bring it up anymore here, when all you get is shouted down.

I'm sure if NASA or some gov. entity does the audits of all those stations it would cost a few million, when it would cost any normal entity what, a hundred grand more or less?

 

[Gary Allan]

jmac - anything offered here is irrelevant. It's the panic and "fear" that oozes out of any objection to anything pointing that "something is unright". It's overbearing. It's that overbearing overtone that makes it very hard to discuss it intelligently ..since no matter what anyone says, one side in particular is poised ..irreversibly ..to discount everything presented. Now it would be a very long stretch to "automatically" have every bit of data rejected. Some of it has to be true, yet not one concession can be made, since this is NOT fueled by bona fide counter information, but rather with discounting information being aggressively sought to promote another agenda.

I don't know anyone who has a "Climate Change Agenda" out of people who AT LEAST, want to know the truth and weigh all data.

My true belief is that it's all true, but that we will not be able to unite the planet in a sensible manner to do a darn thing about it.

There you go. I think it's an exercise in futility. If I was a profiteering liar and thief, I'd be assuring that as much misinformation was being presented, assuring that confusion and conjecture were max'd out for as long as possible ..all the while quietly developing remedial or future growth enterprises to capitalize upon the inevitable.

That's what a hard core liar and thief would do if he had the power to do so.

You don't know any people like that, do you? Types that would remain silent while they took you to the cleaners in some manner?

 

[jmac]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
jmac - anything offered here is irrelevant. It's the panic and "fear" that oozes out of any objection to anything pointing that "something is unright". It's overbearing. It's that overbearing overtone that makes it very hard to discuss it intelligently ..since no matter what anyone says, one side in particular is poised ..irreversibly ..to discount everything presented. Now it would be a very long stretch to "automatically" have every bit of data rejected. Some of it has to be true, yet not one concession can be made, since this is NOT fueled by bona fide counter information, but rather with discounting information being aggressively sought to promote another agenda.

Very well said!

Quote:

I don't know anyone who has a "Climate Change Agenda" out of people who AT LEAST, want to know the truth and weigh all data.

Yes I think there are those on both sides, as well as those stuck in the middle that want the same thing.

Quote:

My true belief is that it's all true, but that we will not be able to unite the planet in a sensible manner to do a darn thing about it.

There you go. I think it's an exercise in futility. If I was a profiteering liar and thief, I'd be assuring that as much misinformation was being presented, assuring that confusion and conjecture were max'd out for as long as possible ..all the while quietly developing remedial or future growth enterprises to capitalize upon the inevitable.

I at least agree with the futility part as well, that is my profound feeling.

Quote:

That's what a hard core liar and thief would do if he had the power to do so.

You don't know any people like that, do you? Types that would remain silent while they took you to the cleaners in some manner?

One who hasn't remained silent but actually made a movie comes immediately to mind, also many corporations are setting up right now, lining up to profit in the taxpayer boondoggle regardless of how much the heads of such corps may actually believe or disbelieve in the cause of climate change. Publicly they have to believe.

Then you are correct, there are those on the other side who would go merrily along if no issue had been raised at all, destroying Puget Sound and Chesapeake Bay and everything else they might in proactively happy ignorance in the name of progress.

 

[Gary Allan]

The last part was my prejudice and paranoia that stems from my foolish delusion of some mythical "just world"

I still expect people to do what they're supposed to. I mean, they expect it from me

Yes, there are always institutions ready to satisfy any need. Most of the true institutional poise is "created". One example would be pointing out that most of our domestic F15 fleet is grounded due to age/stress fatigue, while ignoring that this was something that was a known occurrence all along ...figuring on a major expenditure for the fix.

It is an oddity though, the fringe zealots (or their antithesis-is that the right word?) tend to drown out most of the saner authorities on the topic.

 

[MarkC]

One thing ( among several) I wonder about the ATMOZ site and conclusions about the monitoring sites: did the author(s) actually take temperature measurements at the allegedly faulty stations, then move some distance away and take measurements away from the source of the supposed agent of producing incorrect temps, and compare?

 

[Cutehumor]

so all this stuff about not getting mailed credit card statements, bank statements, etc wasn't about saving the trees. it's about saving money.

I think in my last paper statement, chase said they would plant a tree in Yellowstone if I accepted emailed statements instead.

 

[Gary Allan]

Our paperless society needs more documentation.

 

[Samilcar]

Originally Posted By: Samilcar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plows,_Plagues_and_Petroleum

Link to a synopsis of this book for anyone interested.


Sorry to bump an old thread, but the author of this book (William Ruddiman) was in the news recently.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/08/18/ancient.global.warming/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

One of the things that impresses me about this guy is his willingness to discuss different weaknesses in not only his own arguments, but in global warming theory in general. He freely admits that the global CO2 cycle is so complex and poorly understood that we can't make future predictions with any amount of certainty. IMO, that sort of intellectual candor is refreshing.