Ken

A new Journal Nature article on warming in Antarctica has gotten a lot of attention. Some of the doubter blogsphere are spreading around an e-mail from a Mr. Ross Hayes (he works for NASA in some capacity) as "evidence" that the Nature article isn't credible.

http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html

My question is, why would anyone consider an e-mail more credible than a peer reviewed journal article by a highly regarded climate scientist in a prestigious scientific journal?

There is no indication Mr. Hayes has any advanced science training, no record of any scientific publications, the e-mail is easily debunked, and though he worked for the CNN weather department (generally listed as a "weather producer") for 19 years he's not even an AMS Certified Broadcast Meteorologist.

http://darynkagan.ning.com/profiles/blogs/new-care...

http://www.ametsoc.org/memdir/seallist/get_listofc...

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/antarctica-...

There's a little heat-wave that's been occurring in Anchorage, Alaska. Those people that love to post questions about how cold weather in their city "proves global warming is false", seem to have missed this.

Here's a quote about it from NOAA:

http://pafc.arh.noaa.gov/pubfcst.php?fcst=NOAK48PA...

AN IMPRESSIVE RECORD HIGH WAS SET ON FRIDAY, JANUARY 16...WHEN THE TEMPERATURE REACHED 50 DEGREES. THIS SHATTERED THE OLD RECORD HIGH OF 44 SET IN 1992 AND 1926. THIS NEW RECORD TIES FOR THE SECOND HIGHEST OFFICIAL JANUARY TEMPERATURE...AND ONLY THE FOURTH TIME THE MUNICIPALITY HAS HIT 50 DEGREES IN JANUARY SINCE RECORD KEEPING BEGAN.

Does this prove, disprove, or have no bearing on the validity of the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming?

I've seen a couple relatively new posters make the claim (sadly, without any links or references that could be checked) that NASA has or is revising their temperature dataset and that will "prove" that the warmest recent global (not US-only) period was in the late 30's. Is this just a rehash of the glitch McIntyre found that was corrected for last year or is there something new out there?

About last years correction:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.h...

Here's a chance for some new doubter to make a reputation and earn my respect. Just provide a link to a reputable scientific research organization that shows the global temperature in the 1930's was higher than recent years.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lr...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007...

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/...

Hopefully dx/dy is reading this (as he's probably the best qualified regular around her to comment on this).

Could thorium based nuclear reactors be the quickest and most cost effective solution for global warming? Is there any reason AGW doubters would object to this technology being promoted, even if they don't see the need to curtail CO2 emissions?

What are the pros and cons of thorium based reactor technology? It seems safer, far more abundant, and possible to drastically reduce the need for on-going coal power generation plants (and their associated environmental effects).

Compared to the average college educated (not necessarily in any physical sciences) citizen of the US, do people here think that they know more, less, or about the same with regard to the subject of global warming?

Then please provide the basis for your opinions (e.g. read ???, have degree in ???, etc.)?

People who regularly read/write the actual scientific literature understand the ambiguities and subtleties of scientific research. But those who get most of their information from the media or personal blogs, seem to get a very contorted understanding.

What do you think of this article ("Climate Experts Tussle Over Details. Public Gets Whiplash"):

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/science/earth/29...

Two quotes that stood out to me were:

"the focus by the public and media on the stream of evolving climate science could distract from the need for policies now that made sense regardless of uncertainties."

"many studies had shown that people tended to sift sources of information to reinforce existing views."

Aerobic production of methane in the sea

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n7/full/ngeo...

"Continued greenhouse-gas-induced global warming could lead to enhanced stratification of the surface ocean and expansion of phosphate-limited, nitrogen-fixation-favorable marine habitats. Such climate-driven modifications could reinforce aerobic methane production, resulting in accelerated greenhouse warming and the ecological consequences thereof."

Are there any studies that come to different conclusions?

Regularly, doubters post the opinion of someone that reads the weather on TV. Does that job really qualify a person to have any significant knowledge about climate science?

Do people think TV weatherman typically take graduate level courses in atmospheric physics? Any graduate level science classes? Bachelor degrees? High school diploma?

OK doubters, present your case for why you consider a TV weather person qualified as an expert witness in the debate over AGW?

Or is this a classic case of the appeal to authority logical fallacy?

The recent NYC Spiderman climb brought attention to global warming, but didn't generate much publicity (positive or negative). Now a group has hijacked a coal train in Britain. This, IMO, tends to cause some to discount global warming as an issue of extremists (vs. a legitimate scientifically based concern). Do others think this type of activity helps or hurts the worlds recognition that global warming is real and needs to be addressed?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/13/...

We all hear the complaints about $4/gallon to fill up at the pump, but are people still ignoring the real cost of our addiction to oil? If people had to pay the real price of gasoline at the pump, would they be demanding +100 mpg and electric cars from the big automakers?

Milton Copulos was a conservative (served in the Reagan White House) and an expert on the oil energy industry. In this 2006 interview he estimates that the real cost of oil to our economy is (again from 2006) $480/barrel. That would be somewhere around $16/gallon at the pump (more in 2008).

http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1018

Even if global warmer were not a problem (which it is), surely there are more than enough reasons for us to aggressively move away from a fossil fuel based transportation system. And doing so will not only help our economy, but it will help fight global warming.

Please read the article before responding in ignorance.

The latest report from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) shows a rapidly accelerating sea ice extent decline. The month of May saw a loss of 8,000 km^2 sea ice per day (60% more rapid than last year at this time).

It looks like the ice produced in 2008 (though a cold year), is simply too thin to hold up and we may be exceeding last Septembers record low level. Should we expect headlines in August or September about new record low sea ice levels?

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_im...

We've been seeing a lot of posts and questions from people that don't seem to understand the difference between percentages and quantity. They seem to think that because Mars has a high % of CO2 in it's atmosphere it should be hot, if greenhouse gas theory of warming were real.

I'm looking for a concise, easily understandable (for the math impaired around here) explanation of why Mars atmosphere is high in CO2 yet Mars isn't hot. I know there are many detailed explanations and analysis of Mars atmosphere, but I think a 3 - 4 sentence paragraph might be better to help these individuals understand. 10 points to the best explanation.

A recent paper publish in the journal Nature indicates a data collection methodology change post WW2 that may require an upward shift of sea surface temperatures by as much as 0.3 C.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7195/fu...

Imagine how this graph would change if the post WW2 ocean temperatures were bumped up 0.3C:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A4.lr...

Is this a significant finding which indicates that the warming has actually been greater than supposed? Is this paper simply incorrect? Or does this mean we should throw out all temperature datasets and declare them unreliable?

Over the past week, I've read 2 or 3 doubters make the assertion that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. None of the asserters (it may be the same individual repeating it) has provided any link as evidence to this claim.

I'd have no problem with someone questioning the level of sensitivity, but an outright claim that it's not even a greenhouse gas sounds like something a non-scientist simply made up.

So here's a chance for a doubter to shine (demonstrating their research skills) and get 10 points. What legitimate scientific source supports the assertion that "CO2 is not a greenhouse gas"?

If someone can show a non-legitimate source making that claim, I'll consider giving you the 10 points as well.

Texas oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens is no liberal tree-hugging flake (nor an attention seeking politician), but he is a very smart man who recognizes the reality of global warming. And it appears that like any good moral capitalist (not all capitalists are moral and not all moral people are capitalists), he's finding a way to both help solve the problem AND earn some money.

Given the glacier-like speed toward action by the worlds politicians, do others think this kind of big money investing by private sector capitalists is the solution to global warming? Or is it at least a very encouraging first step?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080418/us_nm/usa_oil_...

I seldom, if ever, see links to Al Gore's web-site to provide evidence that supports the theory of global warming. Instead, I see people like Bob, Dana, JS, d/dx d/dy d/dz, Alan J, gcnp58, etc. post links to actual scientific literature and respected scientific research organizations.

If we were all going around saying "Al Gore said ...", then I'd understand the attacks on Gore. But Gore is insignificant to the truth/falsity of global warming. And only someone ignorant of the climate science community would think he's the source of any evidence for global warming.

So, doubters, why do you continue to attack Gore? Do you really think that if everyone agreed Gore was a lying sack of sh** who's only in this for money, that would somehow disprove the science and eliminate the IPCC reports on global warming?

I'd like to hear from the doubters what specific ways that a globally warmer climate will be good for our civilization and species. And what would be considered too much warming?

Please provide links to reliable sources for your views. Personal assertions and opinions around here tend to be quite inaccurate at times.

I frequently read doubters claiming Antarctica is gaining ice, yet this is in direct contradiction with the scientific literature I've read. So what is the original source (that doesn't include anonymous posts, or op-ed opinion pieces) of that claim?

Here's the recent information I have that Antarctica is actually losing significant ice mass:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311...

http://cires.colorado.edu/news/press/2006/06-03-02...

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-do...

Voluntary reduction of carbon energy utilization (e.g. conservation)?

Carbon trading (slowly pricing carbon-based energy out)?

Mandatory reduction of carbon energy utilization (e.g. laws requiring cars to get 60 mpg, home-insulation improvements, etc.)

Technological breakthroughs in new forms of energy that will compete on the open market to replace carbon-based energy?

Or a method to extract carbon from the atmosphere?

I've long thought this might be the best approach, and this story gives me hope in that area:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/08030...

Scientist say that the chemicals responsible for the growing ozone hole remain in the atmosphere for 40 - 100 years. The greenhouse gas CO2 remains in the atmosphere even longer (thus it's effect will go on a long time after we stop or greatly reduce emissions). Fortunately, actions against the ozone hole problem were decisive and fairly early after detecting the problem. And by 2070, it's estimated it will be closed up.

Some people naively expect instant results from our changes, but that's simply not reality in a complex system. It took 60 years of human activity to create the problem and it's taking 80 years to completely resolve it. Isn't this a call for Global Warming action now?

http://www.livescience.com/environment/071019-ap-o...

http://www.theozonehole.com/