Bush Seeks New Image on Global Warming, Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news110267267.html

http://www.physorg.com/news110267267.html

Really. He and his ilk should be put in plasma-torch-powered toxic waste disposal units when they are dead. Even cremation or burial will poison this mudball for eons.

Carbonite!

I don't blame him for dancing around the issue.

China & India (40%+ of the world population) refuse to lower their pollution and the EU is flat out demanding that the US pay 90%+ of the projected .01% Gross World Product that they think will be needed for a Global Warming Reduction fund. Yeah right!!

Years ago I was commenting (on multiple threads here) that I didn't understand why Bush shouldn't jump on the global warming bandwagon. There's no reason he shouldn't encourage his buddies to enforce global restrictions for competition in the energy industry.

Sure enough, I was right ... he simply was trying to keep a few voters happy, but he's part of the global energy monopolization effort, as predicted. At least I can feel good having predicted his true colors ... though that's little compensation for paying jacked up prices for energy so his buddies can go around creating a global empire.

(Seriously, this is 100% scam ... He doesn't care when hundreds of thousands die in the Middle East, but he'll claim he's worried about some polar bears. He's just a figurehead though and the problem is larger than just him.)

I presume you're referring to his intellect?

So this war we've been in for a few years now is just imagined?

There are very good reasons for him not to jump on the bandwagon....number one is that there STILL is not proof that human activity is the cause of warming.
(If you have this proof there is a way to make $125,000. I can direct you to that site.)

Henrik Svensmark, Theodor Landsheidt, Rhodes Fairbridge, and many others are, in my opinion, on the right trail to discover the primary climate forcers......... and it is not CO2!
As most of you know, rising levels of CO2, historically, has followed warming by decades, and sometimes much more. A follower can not be a forcer.
Co2 is also an absorber/reflector at very narrow band widths, and their influence on warming is logarithmic.

Climate models are fatally flawed due to lack of understanding of our complicated system, and until we know more about the processes involved, not suitable for determining public policy.

In addition to all this, there has been no GLOBAL warming for nearly a decade. While the northern hemisphere has warmed slightly, the southern hemisphere has had a decrease in temperature. Argentina has just finished it's coldest winter in a hundred years, Australia had below normal temperatures, and the Antarctic Ice mass has grown.
With CO2 well mixed in the atmosphere, there being as much in the south as the north, why are we getting opposite trends? It appears something else is driving the climate........... and we all see it rise every morning.

Notice how the NYT and the BBC are silent on this.

http://www.thegatewayonline.ca/globe-cooli...070918-861.html

http://www.decanter.com/news/143693.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/economicNew...135303920070921

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/24/1986994.htm

Arthur

This post has been edited by adoucette on Oct 4 2007, 10:13 PM

They are silent for good reasons:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/060..._antarctic.html

http://www.livescience.com/environment/060...arctic_ice.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=18

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/antarctic_cooling.html

Of course, then there is this:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...tarctic-update/

There are also quite a few different arguments out there for why Antarctica should be so anomalous, for example one is that a circumpolar circulation in the atmosphere walls Antarctica off from the rest of the Earth's atmosphere; another is that the circulation and turnover currents in the southern ocean are currently buffering Antarctica's surface climate; another is that the south polar ozone hole is contributing to anomalously low temperatures; etc.

Bottom line: because of the many poorly understood nuances, don't look to Antarctica for any conclusive information regarding the nature or extent of global warming. Luckily, we do have the basic laws of physics underlying the greenhouse effect, as well as the rest of the globe, to provide us with less ambiguous guidance.

This post has been edited by Pink Elephant on Oct 5 2007, 02:32 AM

I'm not just talking about Antarctica,

Do you DISPUTE the fact that the Southern Hemisphere has cooled down?

In fact its Winter land readings (June - August) were an insignificant 0.2 C above the AVERAGE for the last 127 years and those years include the BRUTALY COLD 50 years that marked the end of the 19th and first 30 years of the 20th century.


You just don't READ about it.

Nor do you read about the fact that the current Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice has set a new RECORD (since we started recording it in 1979) of INCREASING ICE.



http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM....area.south.jpg

Sorry the Globe isn't cooperating with you.

Arthur

This post has been edited by adoucette on Oct 5 2007, 02:37 AM

No, not an "OOPS" at all. In fact, climate models expected higher levels of precipitation to contribute to greater sea ice during winter, and in general to sea ice accumulation on the Antarctic continent. The data showing that Antarctica is actually loosing continental ice came as a surprise to just about every model.

The oceanic circulation patterns around Antarctica are also such that conditions favor greater sea ice cover in the short term, for example as mentioned here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=18

and here:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...tarctic-update/

... both of which had already been linked (and partially quoted) in my preceding post above, but apparently never perused....

You can read up more on the Atlantic Circumpolar Current, and its effects on the Antarctic climate, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Circumpolar_Current

... where it is also mentioned (in passing) that this current has gotten amplified recently, probably due to short-term wind trends.

This post has been edited by Pink Elephant on Oct 5 2007, 02:44 AM

I read them.

And I TOTALLY AGREE

Which is why the predominately WINTER ARCTIC WARMING we are having is NOT the same as GLOBAL WARMING.

Arthur

No, of course it's not the same. Global warming is calculated from measurements all over the globe -- not just in the Arctic, or just the Antarctic for that matter.

The effect of anthropogenic warming is an overall raising of the bar on average temperatures. It is not a guarantee that temperatures will increase equally everywhere. Nor is it a guarantee that local climate variability should decrease; indeed most models predict the opposite: that local climates will become less predictable and more extreme over time.

That means more drought in some areas, while more floods in other areas. More ice thaw in some places, and more winter ice due to increased precipitation in others.

Even assuming the high range of IPCC estimates of 8 degree C warming over the next 100 years, it won't make much difference at the South Pole where temperatures hover around -50 C. And perhaps global warming will result in intensification of the southern circumpolar winds, which might actually cool Antarctica even more. However, nobody lives in Antarctica, so it doesn't matter much what exactly happens there (short of a catastrophic melt-off of the ice shelf, which seems quite unlikely.) But global warming would make a huge difference in the habitable zones, which is THE reason to be concerned about it.

More information, for inquiring minds, about climate change over Antarctica from the British Antarctic Survey:

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/o...mate_change.php

Some teasers:

This post has been edited by Pink Elephant on Oct 5 2007, 03:26 AM

Don't you LOVE GWer climate predictions that CAN'T be wrong?




A lot of stations?

See: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

Try these:

Data Sources: Land: GISS analysis
Ocean: none
Map Type: Anomalies
Mean Period: Annual (Jan-Dec)
Time Interval: Begin 2001 — End 2006
Base Period: Begin 1931 — End 1936
Smoothing Radius: 250 km
Projection type: regular

This shows colored squares within 250 km of a station.

Note the HUGE areas NOT MEASURED at all.

Play with it

Change the period above to just the NH cold period. Then to the NH warm period.

OOPS.

You will find that most of the warming is in the NH in the WINTER.

Note how the US (and large parts of the globe) are COOLER in the Summer.

Arthur

This post has been edited by adoucette on Oct 5 2007, 04:15 AM

Anthropogenic global warming implies several phenomena that are indeed falsifiable and testable:

1) Concentration of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continues to increase exponentially
2) Troposphere warms, while stratosphere cools
3) Local climate variability (deviation from mean) increases
4) Average global surface temperature goes up

Regarding measured areas, try this:

Data Sources: Land: GISS analysis
Ocean: none
Map Type: Trends
Mean Period: Annual (Jan-Dec)
Time Interval: Begin 1950 — End 2006
Base Period: Begin 1900 — End 1950
Smoothing Radius: 250 km
Projection type: regular

Most continental landmass is covered quite well, as well as some islands in the Pacific. Certainly good enough to see a global pattern.

Tried global Winter (Dec-Feb) and Summer (Jun-Aug) settings for the Mean Period as well, and both show consistent warming trend across the globe.

Though even using your own settings -- just enabling ocean data in addition to land data -- is quite illuminating; you should try it. Remember, we live on a water world, and the oceans are our air conditioner. They've been buffering us against rapid climate change, because it takes them such a long time to warm up. But by the same token, it will take them equally as long to cool back down....

As for any particular spot on the globe, I seem to recall a recent statement from one "adoucette":