Island disappears..global Warming .....Global Warning!

[truetrini]

those denying Global warming are akin to those who deny the holocaust and the evils of the African slave trade...head in the clouds, or buried in the sand!

Some will faster believe that they will miraculously sprout wings after death and live forever in some shangri-la in the heavens., than they will hard scientific evidence.

there are over 31,000 American scientists. who would disagree with you.  But what do they know?

to quote  "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

But since they dispute what you believe, then they must be wrong.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

No need to respond because I know exactly what you will say.

f**k dem!  Global Warming is real.  all dem 31,000 scientists how many of dem is experts in this related field?   STEUPS!I went to de list and MAny OF THOSE NAMES REPEATED TOO!

BESIDES WHY WOULD ANY "SCIENTIST" WANT TO IGNORE THE EFFECTS OF GREENHOUSE GASSES?  EVEN if greenhouse emmissions were not responsible for global warming, can dese bullers deny the ill effects on life on earth?

[truetrini]

so has there been a study to figure out HOW long it would take the Environment to "Right Itself" after all the changes that people say are required in doing things

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.abstract

[truetrini]

sINCE 1861 MAN SAYING co2 RESPONSIBKE FOR GLOBAL TEMPERATURES!

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=carbon-dioxide-and-climate

[WestCoast]

Thanks, buh Ya doh have de Cliff notes eh

I found the full article.
it long no armen
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1704.full
at first look it appears very complicated so go have to mull over it for awhile

[pecan]

those denying Global warming are akin to those who deny the holocaust and the evils of the African slave trade...head in the clouds, or buried in the sand!

Some will faster believe that they will miraculously sprout wings after death and live forever in some shangri-la in the heavens., than they will hard scientific evidence.

there are over 31,000 American scientists. who would disagree with you.  But what do they know?

to quote  "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

But since they dispute what you believe, then they must be wrong.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

No need to respond because I know exactly what you will say.

f**k dem!  Global Warming is real.  all dem 31,000 scientists how many of dem is experts in this related field?   STEUPS!I went to de list and MAny OF THOSE NAMES REPEATED TOO!

BESIDES WHY WOULD ANY "SCIENTIST" WANT TO IGNORE THE EFFECTS OF GREENHOUSE GASSES?  EVEN if greenhouse emmissions were not responsible for global warming, can dese bullers deny the ill effects on life on earth?

 

So out of 31,000 people, you doh think at least two a dem go have they same name?

And they are scientist just like the UN committee that prepared the report?

And since when do historians know anything about global warming?  Oh wait, Al Gore is jnot a hoistorian.  HE must be a political scientist eh?

 

you so predictable

for the record, as stewards of our plant we have to take care of it.  SO I do not condone wanton disregard our resources and for the future of our children.

IS just that the sciene is not settled and any GOOD SCIENTIST, shoul dnever disregard the unknowns in any theory.  That is what good sciences is all about.

[truetrini]

those denying Global warming are akin to those who deny the holocaust and the evils of the African slave trade...head in the clouds, or buried in the sand!

Some will faster believe that they will miraculously sprout wings after death and live forever in some shangri-la in the heavens., than they will hard scientific evidence.

there are over 31,000 American scientists. who would disagree with you.  But what do they know?

to quote  "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

But since they dispute what you believe, then they must be wrong.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

No need to respond because I know exactly what you will say.

f**k dem!  Global Warming is real.  all dem 31,000 scientists how many of dem is experts in this related field?   STEUPS!I went to de list and MAny OF THOSE NAMES REPEATED TOO!

BESIDES WHY WOULD ANY "SCIENTIST" WANT TO IGNORE THE EFFECTS OF GREENHOUSE GASSES?  EVEN if greenhouse emmissions were not responsible for global warming, can dese bullers deny the ill effects on life on earth?

 

So out of 31,000 people, you doh think at least two a dem go have they same name?

And they are scientist just like the UN committee that prepared the report?

And since when do historians know anything about global warming?  Oh wait, Al Gore is jnot a hoistorian.  HE must be a political scientist eh?

 

you so predictable

for the record, as stewards of our plant we have to take care of it.  SO I do not condone wanton disregard our resources and for the future of our children.

IS just that the sciene is not settled and any GOOD SCIENTIST, shoul dnever disregard the unknowns in any theory.  That is what good sciences is all about.

Fella at least i stand FOR SOMETHING..you on de odder hand?  Yuh is ah f**king sheep...following here and there..no matter one day yuh go end up in ah pot ah mutton!  Good science is good science, when scientists other than climatologists babble and you choose to listen good for you,  Yuh doh put ah dentist to coach ah football team...dat is poor science!  Same way yuh would not go to a dentist to take out yuh tonsils.....right?  So when yuh go to a electrical engineer to talk about climate change what de f**k he know?  steups.

http://ecoble.com/2008/11/23/is-global-warming-real-5-proofs/  Read that and keep yuh arse quiet

[truetrini]

and what UN report you referring to?

Surveyed scientists agree global warming is realStory Highlights
Most earth scientists believe humans cause of global warming, according to survey

97 percent of climatologists canvassed believe humans play a role

Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters
     
(CNN) -- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.


A survey of more than 3,000 scientists found that the vast majority believe humans cause global warming.

 Against a backdrop of harsh winter weather across much of North America and Europe, the concept of rising global temperatures might seem incongruous.

However the results of the investigation conducted at the end of 2008 reveal that vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.

"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," said Peter Doran associate professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and one of the survey's authors.

"Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."

However, Doran was not surprised by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.

"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it.

"The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes," said Doran.

[truetrini]

April 7, 2009 | 0 comments

EU: Earth warming faster
 
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=eu-earth-warming-faster
 
 
EU: Earth warming faster A mountain is reflected in a bay that used to be covered by the Sheldon glacier on the Antarctic peninsula, January 14, 2009. REUTERS/Alister Doyle

   
OSLO/BONN (Reuters) - Global warming is likely to overshoot a 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F) rise seen by the European Union and many developing nations as a trigger for "dangerous" change, a Reuters poll of scientists showed on Tuesday.

Nine of 11 experts, who were among authors of the final summary by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 (IPCC), also said the evidence that mankind was to blame for climate change had grown stronger in the past two years.

Giving personal views of recent research, most projected on average a faster melt of summer ice in the Arctic and a quicker rise in sea levels than estimated in the 2007 report, the most authoritative overview to date drawing on work by 2,500 experts.

"A lot of the impacts we're seeing are running ahead of our expectations," said William Hare of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

Ten of 11 experts said it was at best "unlikely" -- or less than a one-third chance -- that the world would manage to limit warming to a 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) rise above pre-industrial levels.

"Scientifically it can be done. But it's unlikely given the level of political will," said Salemeel Huq at the International Institute for Environment and Development in London.

And David Karoly, of the University of Melbourne, said the world was "very unlikely" to reach the goal.

"The concentration of long-lived greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is already enough to cause warming of more than 2C above pre-industrial levels, and we are continuing to emit more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere," he said.

BONN TALKS

Officials from 175 nations are meeting in Bonn, Germany, for 11 days of negotiations lasting until April 8 on a new U.N. climate treaty due to be agreed in December. Reuters got 11 replies to five questions, sent to 35 IPCC authors.

The European Union, many developing nations and environmental groups say 2 Celsius above pre-industrial levels is the maximum to avoid the worst of rising sea levels, floods, droughts or heatwaves. Temperatures are already up 0.7 Celsius.

An alliance of 43 small island developing states, who fear being swamped, want temperatures limited to an even tougher goal of below 1.5 Celsius. They say rich nations should sharply cut greenhouse gas emissions, mainly from burning fossil fuels.

Removal of manmade sun-blocking smoke under clean air laws may add a 1 Celsius rise while oceans will warm further under a lag effect, underscoring how near the 2 degrees limit is already.

The IPCC said in 2007 that it was at least 90 percent certain that human activities, led by burning fossil fuels, were the main cause of warming in the past 50 years. Nine reckoned that evidence was stronger, two said it was unchanged.

Six of the scientists said world average annual temperatures would set a new record by 2015 -- and another four projected that it would happen by 2020 -- dismissing views from skeptics that global warming has stopped.

The hottest year since records began in the 19th century was 1998, according to the World Meteorological Organization.

And the scientists generally said that sea levels would rise faster than projected in the IPCC report, in a threat to many cities, islands and coasts from Bangladesh to Florida.

The IPCC said seas would rise by between 18 and 59 cms (7-24 inches) this century. But it pointed to big uncertainties about ice sheets in Greenland or Antarctica -- one IPCC estimate was that this ice could add up to 20 cms to sea level rise.

In the poll, the lowest projection for sea level rise by 2100 was 30-40 cms, the highest up to 140 cms.

And 10 of those polled projected that Arctic late summer sea ice could vanish before 2050, with two saying it could disappear by 2020. The IPCC had said some scenarios pointed to a loss in the latter half of the century.

-- For Reuters latest environment blogs click on: http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/

[Bitter]

as stewards of our planet we have to take care of it.

This is all the argument we need to pursue better, more sustainable ("green") policies in public and private life.

The rest of it, will be a side effect.

If we accept that we must do better in this regard, the next question is how.

Should the developed nations decide to truly make effort to change the way they power their societies and economies, one wonders where developing world fall in all of this.

After 200 years of burning coal and oil to create the world we have now, can the developed world really turn to the rest and say "we know we did it, but if you do it, you're going to kill us all, so buy our technology instead"

The largest developing nations, India, China, Brazil, have a unique opportunity to put themselves ahead of the curve on this and become the creators of the technology that will power the future rather than the customers.

[ribbit]

several studies have been conducted and the media is ignoring one fact, the sun is getting hotter, which is part of the reason we are experiencing these temperature changes.

like dey go out de sun just to stop global warming.    i hear about that too from a meteorologist no less - sunspot activity.

[truetrini]

as stewards of our planet we have to take care of it.

This is all the argument we need to pursue better, more sustainable ("green") policies in public and private life.

The rest of it, will be a side effect.

If we accept that we must do better in this regard, the next question is how.

Should the developed nations decide to truly make effort to change the way they power their societies and economies, one wonders where developing world fall in all of this.

After 200 years of burning coal and oil to create the world we have now, can the developed world really turn to the rest and say "we know we did it, but if you do it, you're going to kill us all, so buy our technology instead"

The largest developing nations, India, China, Brazil, have a unique opportunity to put themselves ahead of the curve on this and become the creators of the technology that will power the future rather than the customers.

I agree....

[capodetutticapi]

i eh know bout canada,but NY was cold no ass today,i dress all rong like is summer and to boot ah was on de jobsite all friggin day.

[E-man]

"Removal of manmade sun-blocking smoke under clean air laws may add a 1 Celsius rise"

scrap the clean air laws, spew more smoke, block the sun, save the planet, LOL
smokers and tokers of the world unite

[WestCoast]

i eh know bout canada,but NY was cold no ass today,i dress all rong like is summer and to boot ah was on de jobsite all friggin day.

very sunny and +17C here today
TOOO HOT

[pecan]

those denying Global warming are akin to those who deny the holocaust and the evils of the African slave trade...head in the clouds, or buried in the sand!

Some will faster believe that they will miraculously sprout wings after death and live forever in some shangri-la in the heavens., than they will hard scientific evidence.

there are over 31,000 American scientists. who would disagree with you.  But what do they know?

to quote  "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

But since they dispute what you believe, then they must be wrong.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

No need to respond because I know exactly what you will say.

f**k dem!  Global Warming is real.  all dem 31,000 scientists how many of dem is experts in this related field?   STEUPS!I went to de list and MAny OF THOSE NAMES REPEATED TOO!

BESIDES WHY WOULD ANY "SCIENTIST" WANT TO IGNORE THE EFFECTS OF GREENHOUSE GASSES?  EVEN if greenhouse emmissions were not responsible for global warming, can dese bullers deny the ill effects on life on earth?

 

So out of 31,000 people, you doh think at least two a dem go have they same name?

And they are scientist just like the UN committee that prepared the report?

And since when do historians know anything about global warming?  Oh wait, Al Gore is jnot a hoistorian.  HE must be a political scientist eh?

 

you so predictable

for the record, as stewards of our plant we have to take care of it.  SO I do not condone wanton disregard our resources and for the future of our children.

IS just that the sciene is not settled and any GOOD SCIENTIST, shoul dnever disregard the unknowns in any theory.  That is what good sciences is all about.

Fella at least i stand FOR SOMETHING..you on de odder hand?  Yuh is ah f**king sheep...following here and there..no matter one day yuh go end up in ah pot ah mutton!  Good science is good science, when scientists other than climatologists babble and you choose to listen good for you,  Yuh doh put ah dentist to coach ah football team...dat is poor science!  Same way yuh would not go to a dentist to take out yuh tonsils.....right?  So when yuh go to a electrical engineer to talk about climate change what de f**k he know?  steups.

http://ecoble.com/2008/11/23/is-global-warming-real-5-proofs/  Read that and keep yuh arse quiet

I have never sworn at you so don't bring your foul language into a discussion with me.

 

And why should I listen to a historian on climate change?

[pecan]

those denying Global warming are akin to those who deny the holocaust and the evils of the African slave trade...head in the clouds, or buried in the sand!

Some will faster believe that they will miraculously sprout wings after death and live forever in some shangri-la in the heavens., than they will hard scientific evidence.

there are over 31,000 American scientists. who would disagree with you.  But what do they know?

to quote  "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

But since they dispute what you believe, then they must be wrong.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

No need to respond because I know exactly what you will say.

f**k dem!  Global Warming is real.  all dem 31,000 scientists how many of dem is experts in this related field?   STEUPS!I went to de list and MAny OF THOSE NAMES REPEATED TOO!

BESIDES WHY WOULD ANY "SCIENTIST" WANT TO IGNORE THE EFFECTS OF GREENHOUSE GASSES?  EVEN if greenhouse emmissions were not responsible for global warming, can dese bullers deny the ill effects on life on earth?

 

So out of 31,000 people, you doh think at least two a dem go have they same name?

And they are scientist just like the UN committee that prepared the report?

And since when do historians know anything about global warming?  Oh wait, Al Gore is jnot a hoistorian.  HE must be a political scientist eh?

 

you so predictable

for the record, as stewards of our plant we have to take care of it.  SO I do not condone wanton disregard our resources and for the future of our children.

IS just that the sciene is not settled and any GOOD SCIENTIST, shoul dnever disregard the unknowns in any theory.  That is what good sciences is all about.

Fella at least i stand FOR SOMETHING..you on de odder hand?  Yuh is ah f**king sheep...following here and there..no matter one day yuh go end up in ah pot ah mutton!  Good science is good science, when scientists other than climatologists babble and you choose to listen good for you,  Yuh doh put ah dentist to coach ah football team...dat is poor science!  Same way yuh would not go to a dentist to take out yuh tonsils.....right?  So when yuh go to a electrical engineer to talk about climate change what de f**k he know?  steups.

http://ecoble.com/2008/11/23/is-global-warming-real-5-proofs/  Read that and keep yuh arse quiet

you is real jokey ...    this must be irony

You tell me about not talking to a electrical engineer, then you send me to a link about 5 proofs for global warming ... then i check to see who is the author of that web site.

A bloody (that is Australian jargon so is not a swear word) SOFTWARE ENGINEER .....  MAKING ANECDOTAL COMMENTS AS PROOF 

I rest my case.  Argument done

November 12, 2007

Welcome to Ecoble - a blog about Eco/Green Design, Innovation and Sustainability.
Growing Passion

My name is Brett Stark (EcoAussie) and I am the owner of Ecoble. Growing up in Australia, I moved to the US (Chicago) in 2000 to pursue software engineering career opportunities. Since then, I have gone through many changes including getting married, welcoming a baby into our family and becoming disillusioned with corporate life. In addition, I have watched eco/green topics become much more important, to both myself and the wider, general population. For myself the education, prioritization and promotion of the environment has become my passion.

I can’t claim to have always placed importance on the environment through my life, certainly not as much as I should have. However, I recognize it is not too late and now is the time for myself and others to take the environment more seriously, give it more priority and ensure that future generations can enjoy it. I firmly believe if the world can take some big steps forward with regards to green innovation and sustainability like it has done with technology and other industries, we can obtain a sustainable culture.

[truetrini]

those denying Global warming are akin to those who deny the holocaust and the evils of the African slave trade...head in the clouds, or buried in the sand!

Some will faster believe that they will miraculously sprout wings after death and live forever in some shangri-la in the heavens., than they will hard scientific evidence.

there are over 31,000 American scientists. who would disagree with you.  But what do they know?

to quote  "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

But since they dispute what you believe, then they must be wrong.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

No need to respond because I know exactly what you will say.

f**k dem!  Global Warming is real.  all dem 31,000 scientists how many of dem is experts in this related field?   STEUPS!I went to de list and MAny OF THOSE NAMES REPEATED TOO!

BESIDES WHY WOULD ANY "SCIENTIST" WANT TO IGNORE THE EFFECTS OF GREENHOUSE GASSES?  EVEN if greenhouse emmissions were not responsible for global warming, can dese bullers deny the ill effects on life on earth?

 

So out of 31,000 people, you doh think at least two a dem go have they same name?

And they are scientist just like the UN committee that prepared the report?

And since when do historians know anything about global warming?  Oh wait, Al Gore is jnot a hoistorian.  HE must be a political scientist eh?

 

you so predictable

for the record, as stewards of our plant we have to take care of it.  SO I do not condone wanton disregard our resources and for the future of our children.

IS just that the sciene is not settled and any GOOD SCIENTIST, shoul dnever disregard the unknowns in any theory.  That is what good sciences is all about.

Fella at least i stand FOR SOMETHING..you on de odder hand?  Yuh is ah f**king sheep...following here and there..no matter one day yuh go end up in ah pot ah mutton!  Good science is good science, when scientists other than climatologists babble and you choose to listen good for you,  Yuh doh put ah dentist to coach ah football team...dat is poor science!  Same way yuh would not go to a dentist to take out yuh tonsils.....right?  So when yuh go to a electrical engineer to talk about climate change what de f**k he know?  steups.

http://ecoble.com/2008/11/23/is-global-warming-real-5-proofs/  Read that and keep yuh arse quiet

you is real jokey ...    this must be irony

You tell me about not talking to a electrical engineer, then you send me to a link about 5 proofs for global warming ... then i check to see who is the author of that web site.

A bloody (that is Australian jargon so is not a swear word) SOFTWARE ENGINEER .....  MAKING ANECDOTAL COMMENTS AS PROOF 

I rest my case.  Argument done

November 12, 2007

Welcome to Ecoble - a blog about Eco/Green Design, Innovation and Sustainability.
Growing Passion

My name is Brett Stark (EcoAussie) and I am the owner of Ecoble. Growing up in Australia, I moved to the US (Chicago) in 2000 to pursue software engineering career opportunities. Since then, I have gone through many changes including getting married, welcoming a baby into our family and becoming disillusioned with corporate life. In addition, I have watched eco/green topics become much more important, to both myself and the wider, general population. For myself the education, prioritization and promotion of the environment has become my passion.

I can’t claim to have always placed importance on the environment through my life, certainly not as much as I should have. However, I recognize it is not too late and now is the time for myself and others to take the environment more seriously, give it more priority and ensure that future generations can enjoy it. I firmly believe if the world can take some big steps forward with regards to green innovation and sustainability like it has done with technology and other industries, we can obtain a sustainable culture.

dummy. is a blog that quotes legitimate articles written by climatologists.  You REALLY have NO LIFE to go through all that to attempt to prove a point!  You took hours before you could respond with lame ass dialogue about why yuh should listen to an Historian on climate change, there is much historians can teach about climate change, we simply study the history of the climate and reason through cause and effect yuh dimwitted old man.  If you had any commonsense you will see that every article posted by me referred to what CLIMATOLOGISTS have deduced. 

Instead of showing the personality of an infant who somehow discovers his friends favourite hiding place. try to develop some modicum of original thought for one in your insipid life.

From the software engineer's blog...ot his deductions...you idiot!

Yes, global warming is real - Britain’s National Academy of Science states:

“The world’s leading climate experts at the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believe that it is greater than 90 per cent likely that human activity is responsible for most of the observed warming in recent decades. That is a pretty strong consensus.”

Nowhere does the bologger or myself suggest that we did studieds that were scientific and neither have claimed to be experts on the topic, what we have both done dummy, is read published scientific FACTS and drawn commonsense conclusions..try it sometime ok brain stem?

Scientists have also discovered a correlation between these temperatures and the level of carbon dioxide (and more recently methane gas) in the atmosphere.

“Global warming will intensify drought and it will intensify floods,” states Stephen Schneider, editor of the Climatic Change journal.

[truetrini]

U.S. study: Ice-free Arctic summers likely sooner than expected 
 

 
 
A NASA satellite image from September 21, 2005 and released on September 21, 2007 shows Arctic summer sea ice coverage in 2005.(Xinhua/Reuters File Photo)
Photo Gallery>>>
 


    WASHINGTON, April 2 (Xinhua) -- Summers in the Arctic may be ice-free in as few as 30 years, not at the end of the century as previously expected, according to a study released by U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The updated forecast is the result of a new analysis of computer models coupled with the most recent summer ice measurements.

    "The Arctic is changing faster than anticipated," said James Overland, an oceanographer at NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory and co-author of the study, which will appear Friday in Geophysical Research Letters. "It's a combination of natural variability, along with warmer air and sea conditions caused by increased greenhouse gases."

    Overland and his co-author, Muyin Wang, a University of Washington research scientist with the Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean in Seattle, analyzed projections from six computer models, including three with sophisticated sea ice physics capabilities. That data was then combined with observations of summer sea ice loss in 2007 and 2008.

    The area covered by summer sea ice is expected to decline from its current 4.6 million square kilometers to about 1 million square kilometers. Much of the sea ice would remain in the area north of Canada and Greenland and decrease between Alaska and Russia in the Pacific Arctic.

    "The Arctic is often called the 'Earth's refrigerator' because the sea ice helps cool the planet by reflecting the sun's radiation back into space," said Wang. "With less ice, the sun's warmth is instead absorbed by the open water, contributing to warmer temperatures in the water and the air."
 

[truetrini]

Climate Change - Science

Contact Us Search:       All EPA This Area   

You are here: EPA Home Climate Change Science State of Knowledge

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


State of Knowledge
Related Links
CCSP

Product 5.2 - Best practice approaches for characterizing, communicating, and incorporating scientific uncertainty in decisionmaking


As with any field of scientific study, there are uncertainties associated with the science of climate change. This does not imply that scientists do not have confidence in many aspects of climate science. Some aspects of the science are known with virtual certainty1, because they are based on well-known physical laws and documented trends. Current understanding of many other aspects of climate change ranges from “very likely” to “uncertain.”

What's Known
Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).
The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.
Top of page

What's Very Likely?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" (IPCC, 2007). In short, a growing number of scientific analyses indicate, but cannot prove, that rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to climate change (as theory predicts). In the coming decades, scientists anticipate that as atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases continue to rise, average global temperatures and sea levels will continue to rise as a result and precipitation patterns will change.

What's Not Certain?
Important scientific questions remain about how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system including precipitation patterns and storms. Answering these questions will require advances in scientific knowledge in a number of areas:

Improving understanding of natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, land-use changes, the warming or cooling effects of pollutant aerosols, and the impacts of changing humidity and cloud cover.
Determining the relative contribution to climate change of human activities and natural causes.
Projecting future greenhouse emissions and how the climate system will respond within a narrow range.
Improving understanding of the potential for rapid or abrupt climate change.
Addressing these and other areas of scientific uncertainty is a major priority of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). The CCSP is developing twenty-one Synthesis and Assessment products to advance scientific understanding of these uncertainty areas by the end of 2008. More information.

Top of page

References
IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning (eds.)]. 1

Throughout the science section of this Web site, use of "virtual certainty" (or virtually certain) conveys a greater than 99% chance that a result is true. Other terms used to communicate confidence include “extremely likely” (greater than 95% chance the result is true), "very likely" (greater than 90% chance the result is true), "likely" (greater than 66% chance the result is true), “more likely than not” (greater than 50% chance the result is true), “unlikely” (less than 33% chance the result is true), “very unlikely” (less than 10% chance the result is true), and “extremely unlikely” (less than 5% chance the result is true). These judgmental estimates originate from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007).

[Bakes]

BNS, I wasn't expressing a view, merely pointing out what's being debated these days.
It's not quite a flat-earth, round earth argument where one side can present quantitative evidence.

Climate science is much more elusive than that.

The Final Proof: Global Warming is a Man-Made Disaster
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm

CNN Meteorologist: Manmade Global Warming Theory 'Arrogant'
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081218205953.aspx

Global Warming Is Man-Made; Antarctic Ice Bubbles Tell the Tale
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/global-warming-manmade.php

Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural?
http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/article/1078

Not the best sources, but certainly diverse enough to cause confusion.

While, to me, there is no doubt that an effort to live in a more ecologically harmonious manner will have measurable benefits to the quality of life on this planet, the jury isn't in on what other effects we can have.
Eliminate CFCs and stop the growth of the Ozone Hole? Sure
Stop burning coal and cool the planet? Maybe
Stop using DDT as a pesticide? Yep!
Don't dump your computer batteries in the trash: Not so much.


How many factories does 1 volcanic eruption equal?
Are cow farts a bigger problem than car exhaust?
Does solar irradiance trump electric cars?

Bitter... that right there is the most accurate statement you made.  Again, I doh want to make it seem like all ah sudden I drinking the Al Gore Kool Aid... actually f**k it... I am.

When yuh watch the film you'll see the coordinated effort the Oil Industry, along with the Bush Administration... maded in trying to discredit the science on Global Warming.  There was a Bush EPA official who took a report by the EPA scientists and purposely blacked out certain parts and changed the language of others.  This man have no scientific or environmental background but took it upon himself to override the EPA's own scientific findings.  When it hit the news what he did he was forced to resign.  Within a month he surfaced working for the Oil industry.  So he was forced out of the EPA... and a month later he's working for Big Oil. You can draw your own conclusions.

The strategy wasn't to refute the science (it is irrefutable, which is why in the closing months of the Bush Administration they finally acknowledged the problem)... the strategy was to throw up as many smoke screens as possible so as to create distractions and confusion.

...unfortunately it's been working, because to this day people (yourself included) are doubting the phenomenon.

[Bakes]

there are over 31,000 American scientists. who would disagree with you.  But what do they know?

to quote  "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

But since they dispute what you believe, then they must be wrong.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

No need to respond because I know exactly what you will say.

Fella this is laughable.  The first question you should ask yourself is who is the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.  The second question should be what studies were done to conclude that Carbon and Methane aren't greenhouse gases... and/or that the greenhouse gases aren't preventing radiated heat from leaving the Earth's atmosphere (the direct cause of global warming).

You should then ask questions about these 31,000 scientists... who are they and what is the basis for them questioning uncontrovertable data?  Is it based on personal opinion that they oppose it... or did they themselves conduct or examine the studies and formed a professional opinion? 

You should then ask yourself about the curious fact that since the late 19th century when Carbon levels were first being measured in the earth's atmosphere, there has been a direct correlation with a fluctuation in the earth's average temperature.  Not opinion... fact!  Whenever carbon levels went up so too did the temperature.  When it fell so too did the temperature.

Maybe it's all magic. 


Who knows... right?

[Bakes]

 

So out of 31,000 people, you doh think at least two a dem go have they same name?

And they are scientist just like the UN committee that prepared the report?

And since when do historians know anything about global warming?  Oh wait, Al Gore is jnot a hoistorian.  HE must be a political scientist eh?

 

you so predictable

for the record, as stewards of our plant we have to take care of it.  SO I do not condone wanton disregard our resources and for the future of our children.

IS just that the sciene is not settled and any GOOD SCIENTIST, shoul dnever disregard the unknowns in any theory.  That is what good sciences is all about.

19th century meteorologists were conducting the carbon/temperature measurements... not historians.  You can laugh at Al Gore all you want, but I'm not sure how it helps your argument.  The tactic is typical though... discredit the source rather than counter the information.

[pecan]

First of all, I am laughing at TT aka TC because of his predictable responses to any argument  in which he has a strong personal belief.  He gets vulgar, insulting and offensive and that sirs, is a fact.  I find it hard to listen to any argument from a person who resorts to petty name calling to make his point.


For the record, I strongly feel that as a global community we need to make the best decisions with respect to implementing policy changes which will affect human lives, now and in the future.  I  try to live my life that way. Am i perfect?  I drive more than I should, I waste more than I should, but at the end of the day I try and most of all, I try not to be hypocritical.

And this is what drives me crazy about the whole global warming issue.  The hypocrites in the industry.

The big issue is would we save more lives by spending monies on malaria preventions, safe drinking water, vaccines, basic hygiene for developing nations?  or Should we change the world economies to invest billions and billions to deal with climate change based on a theory that all the climate changes are attributed primarily to CO2?

Will global warming lead to catastrophe changes in the word?  We simply do not know. Yet many are prepared to ignore existing crises on a projected crisis.

There are world renown scientists who have opposing views. 

Here are 38 articles that challenge the prevailing views or question the issuse related to climate change.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/pages/climate-change-the-deniers.aspx

[pecan]

Here are some CV's of so called deniers

Christopher Landsea received his doctoral degree in atmospheric science from Colorado State University. A research meteorologist at the Atlantic Oceanic and Meteorological Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, he was chair of the American Meteorological Society's committee on tropical meteorology and tropical cyclones and a recipient of the American Meteorological Society's Banner I. Miller Award for the "best contribution to the science of hurricane and tropical weather forecasting." He is a frequent contributor to leading journals, including Science, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Journal of Climate, and Nature.

Edward Wegman received his Ph.D. degree in mathematical statistics from the University of Iowa. In 1978, he went to the Office of Naval Research, where he headed the Mathematical Sciences Division with responsibility Navy-wide for basic research programs. He coined the phrase computational statistics, and developed a high-profile research area around this concept, which focused on techniques and methodologies that could not be achieved without the capabilities of modern computing resources and led to a revolution in contemporary statistical graphics. Dr. Wegman was the original program director of the basic research program in Ultra High Speed Computing at the Strategic Defense Initiative's Innovative Science and Technology Office. He has served as editor or associate editor of numerous prestigious journals and has published more than 160 papers and eight books.


Richard Tol received his PhD in Economics from the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam. He is Michael Otto Professor of Sustainability and Global Change at Hamburg University, director of the Centre for Marine and Atmospheric Science, principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University. He is a board member of the Centre for Marine and Climate Research, the International Max Planck Research Schools of Earth Systems Modelling and Maritime Affairs, and the European Forum on Integrated Environmental Assessment. He is an editor of Energy Economics, an associate editor of Environmental and Resource Economics, and a member of the editorial board of Environmental Science and Policy and Integrated Assessment.

Duncan Wingham was educated at Leeds and Bath Universities where he gained a B.Sc. and PhD. in Physics. He was appointed to a chair in the Department of Space and Climate Physics in 1996, and to head of the Department of Earth Sciences in October, 2005. Prof. Wingham is a member of the National Environmental Research Council's Science and Technology Board and Earth Observation Experts Group. He is a director of the NERC Centre for Polar Observation & Modelling and principal scientist of the European Space Agency CryoSat Satellite Mission, the first ESA Earth Sciences satellite selected through open, scientific competition.

etc ... you may read the CV that are published at the end of each of the 38 articles

[pecan]

So when I read articles published by what appears to be leading scientists in their filed, I a ssory, I do question the political agenda of people like Al Gore.

MY MAIN POINT:

We cannot blindly jump on the band wagon because fighting global warming is now sexy.

The science is not settled and the decisions being proposed or made suggest that the effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is catastrophic.

I think the cure is worse that the bite


If TT feels so strongly about the diseases, then he should be lobbying the government of T&T to cease oil production and find other economic solutions.

[pecan]

This quote sums up by views



"We only understand 10% of the climate issue. That is not enough to wreck the world economy with Kyoto-like measures."

Henk Tennekes, was the director of research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute and later chairman of the august Scientific Advisory Committee of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts.

[truetrini]

First of all, I am laughing at TT aka TC because of his predictable responses to any argument  in which he has a strong personal belief.  He gets vulgar, insulting and offensive and that sirs, is a fact.  I find it hard to listen to any argument from a person who resorts to petty name calling to make his point.


For the record, I strongly feel that as a global community we need to make the best decisions with respect to implementing policy changes which will affect human lives, now and in the future.  I  try to live my life that way. Am i perfect?  I drive more than I should, I waste more than I should, but at the end of the day I try and most of all, I try not to be hypocritical.

And this is what drives me crazy about the whole global warming issue.  The hypocrites in the industry.

The big issue is would we save more lives by spending monies on malaria preventions, safe drinking water, vaccines, basic hygiene for developing nations?  or Should we change the world economies to invest billions and billions to deal with climate change based on a theory that all the climate changes are attributed primarily to CO2?

Will global warming lead to catastrophe changes in the word?  We simply do not know. Yet many are prepared to ignore existing crises on a projected crisis.

There are world renown scientists who have opposing views. 

Here are 38 articles that challenge the prevailing views or question the issuse related to climate change.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/pages/climate-change-the-deniers.aspx

What onion skinned?  Show me where I have insulted you or become vulgar?

You mean when I say f**k them and their flawed science?  Or when I call the meteorologists and the oil geologists bullers?  Do you fit that mould?  Are you a meteorologist or a geologist? Steups.

So what if they only know 10% about the climate issue?  The 10% that they do know about shows conclusively that we are damaging the atmosphere and contributing t global warming.  The main reason we don't know more is becuse there is a delibrate lack of funding in the area and a concerted effort by f**king nations with much to lose financially to stymie the truth!

its like the case with petroleum...when California had a mandate to have a certain number of electric cars on the road by 200?  the first thing bush did when he came to power was withdraw the electric cars already on the road and to scrap the project.

Do you not believe that technology exists to repalce the engine in cars as we know it?  So they run cleaner and more efficiently?

The truth is YES, but the sad truth is if petroleum based engines are replaced economies will be wiped out, so the f**kers persist due to greed and avarice.

[Bakes]

And this is what drives me crazy about the whole global warming issue.  The hypocrites in the industry.

Ask yourself this question... who are likely to be the biggest hypocrites in this debate?  Who stands to gain or lose the most?  If the "hypocrite" environmentalists get their way then what is the agenda... to wreck global economies?

Consider the alternative... 'Big Oil' stands a lot to lose if the dynamic shifts away from carbon-based fuels... no?  They have a very tangible economic interest in discrediting the global-warming debate... so again, ask yourself, "who's likely to be the bigger hypocrites"?

The big issue is would we save more lives by spending monies on malaria preventions, safe drinking water, vaccines, basic hygiene for developing nations?

The answer is pretty simple... so simple as to render your question irrelevant really.  All the world is potentially affected by global warming, the repercussions far-reaching.  The items on your list, while providing more immediate and tangible benefits, would benefit a tiny fraction of the global population in the end.  No brainer.

or Should we change the world economies to invest billions and billions to deal with climate change based on a theory that all the climate changes are attributed primarily to CO2?

Forget about climate change... "billions and billions" SHOULD be invested ANYWAYS to identify and develop alternate fuel sources that move us away from fossil fuels.  "billions and billions" SHOULD be invested into conservation of non-renewable resources which are being depleted at an alarming rate.  This is typical of the smokescreen distractions that litter the opposition side of this debate.  This is something we SHOULD be doing anyways, even if you don't buy into the global warming theory... what's the debate about?

Will global warming lead to catastrophe changes in the word?  We simply do not know. Yet many are prepared to ignore existing crises on a projected crisis.

There are world renown scientists who have opposing views. 

Here are 38 articles that challenge the prevailing views or question the issuse related to climate change.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/pages/climate-change-the-deniers.aspx

YOU and others like you don't know because you don't WANT to know.  Global warming is leading to the melting of the polar ice caps, including shrinking of the northern edge of the Antarctic landmass.  Ocean temperatures are rising which are a threat not only because they in turn help heat the atmosphere, but more critically because it prevents the cycling of cold and warm water which is central to the world's Ocean currents.  If these current pumps are shut off then the repercussions for the Earth's climate are even more dire.

[Bakes]

Here are some CV's of so called deniers

Christopher Landsea received his doctoral degree in atmospheric science from Colorado State University. A research meteorologist at the Atlantic Oceanic and Meteorological Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, he was chair of the American Meteorological Society's committee on tropical meteorology and tropical cyclones and a recipient of the American Meteorological Society's Banner I. Miller Award for the "best contribution to the science of hurricane and tropical weather forecasting." He is a frequent contributor to leading journals, including Science, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Journal of Climate, and Nature.

Edward Wegman received his Ph.D. degree in mathematical statistics from the University of Iowa.

Richard Tol received his PhD in Economics from the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam.

Duncan Wingham was educated at Leeds and Bath Universities where he gained a B.Sc. and PhD. in Physics.
etc ... you may read the CV that are published at the end of each of the 38 articles

How are any of these men different from the Software Engineer that you so readily derided earlier?  Or are some non-Environmental Scientists more equal than others?

[Bakes]

So when I read articles published by what appears to be leading scientists in their filed, I a ssory, I do question the political agenda of people like Al Gore.

Again... what is this 'agenda' that you speak of.  It's easy to lob unsubstantiated claims on the internet w/o worrying about supporting them.  I now will challenge you to identify this 'political agenda' you speak of Gore having.

MY MAIN POINT:

We cannot blindly jump on the band wagon because fighting global warming is now sexy.

Are you speaking of YOURSELF?  Because the discussion on the evironmental side is quite informed... there is absolutely nothing that's 'blind' about the position.

The science is not settled and the decisions being proposed or made suggest that the effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is catastrophic.

I think the cure is worse that the bite

This is nonsense... the 'cure' addresses several ills that ultimately need addressing sooner rather than later.  The talk of the science not being settled is more of the usual sophism that accompanies these such debates.  The science needs not be settled when we are faced with such overwhelming evidence that the Earth's temperature is rising.  Even the 'deniers' don't deny this... they simply disagree that CO2 emissions are to blame.  But the position is baffling and illogical at best.  So even if we aren't 99.9% sure within one standard deviation of certainty that CO2 emissions are the cause, clearly something needs to be done, can CO2 emission reduction is a credible target.  Rather than disprove CO2 as a contributor, they simply offer a hodgepodge of suggestions, each less convincing than the other... as to why the average temperature keeps rising.