Climate Change

Climate And Glacier Change In Southwestern China.

Significant increases in annual temperatures are having a devastating affect on glaciers in the mountainous regions of southwestern China, potentially affecting natural habitats, tourism and wider economic development.

In a study published in Environmental Research Letters, scientists examined data from 111 weather stations across south-western China and have shown that temperature patterns were consistent with warming, at a statistically significant level, between 1961 and 2008. Of the 111 stations examined, 77 per cent displayed statistically significant increases in annual temperature.

Collating a broad range of research on glaciers during this time period, the researchers, from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, identified three characteristics that were consistent with the increasing trend in temperature; drastic retreats were observed in the glacial regions, along with large losses of mass and an increase in the area of glacial lakes.

In the Pengqu basin of the Himalayas, for example, the 999 glaciers had a combined area loss of 131 km2 between 1970 and 2001, whilst the Yalong glacier in the Gangrigabu Mountains retreated over 1500 meters from 1980 to 2001.

The implications of these changes are far more serious than simply altering the landscape; glaciers are an integral part of thousands of ecosystems and play a crucial role in sustaining human populations. Continued widespread melting of glaciers, caused by increasing temperatures, could potentially lead to floods, mudflows and rock falls, affecting traffic, tourism and wider economic development. Southwestern China has 23,488 glaciers, covering an area of 29,523 km2 across the Himalayas and the Nyainqntanglha, Tanggula and Hengduan mountains.

The lead author of this study, Dr Zongxing Li, said, "I think glacial loss is caused mainly by rises in temperature, especially in the high altitude regions. From the 14 weather stations above 4000 m, there was an annual mean temperature increase of 1.73 °C from 1961 to 2008.


Zongxing Li and Yuanqing He and Wenling An and Linlin Song and Wei Zhang and Norm Catto and Yan Wang and Shijin Wang and Huancai Liu and Weihong Cao and Wilfred. Climate and glacier change in southwestern China during the past several decades. Environmental Research Letters 2011;6(4):045404. Climate and glacier change in southwestern China during the past several decades


Glaciers are distributed in the Nyainqntanglha Mountains, Himalayas, Tanggula Mountains, Gangdise Mountains and Hengduan Mountains in Southwestern China. Daily temperature and precipitation data from 111 stations, together with the records of glacier changes, indicate that temperature patterns during 1961-2008 were consistent with warming at a statistically significant level. Seasonal warming was greatest in autumn and winter. Temperature rise showed a significant relationship with sea surface temperature in the Western Pacific, net longwave radiation flux, altitude, sunshine hours, strengthening anticyclonic circulations in summer and anomalous cyclonic circulation in winter. The increase was more apparent in higher altitude areas than in lower ones. Precipitation variations were less marked than those of temperature, generally showing weak decreasing trends during 1961-2008. Increasing trends were apparent only in spring and winter, when regional trends of precipitation increases with altitude also were evident. The strengthening Western Pacific Subtropical Highs were related to precipitation variation. Against the background of increasing temperature, especially the increasing warming with altitude, the fronts of 32 glaciers and areas of 13 glacial basins have retreated, mass losses of 10 glaciers have been considerable, glacial lakes in six regions have expanded and melt water discharge of four basins has also increased, but these glaciers and basins in our study are only a fraction of the retreating glaciers over southwestern China.
 
RealClearPolitics - Global Warming -- RIP

Not long ago, candidate Obama promised to cool the planet and lower the rising seas. Indeed, he campaigned on passing "cap-and-trade" legislation, a radical, costly effort to reduce America's traditional carbon energy use.

The theory was that new taxes and greater regulations would make Americans pay more for fossil-fuel energy -- a good thing if it reduced our burning of coal, oil and gas. Obama was not shy in admitting that under his green plans, electricity prices would "necessarily skyrocket." His energy secretary, Steven Chu, at one point had even said, "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe" -- that is, about $8-$10 per gallon. Fairly or not, the warming movement seemed to cast a tiny elite imposing costs on a poorer and supposedly less informed middle class.

But despite a Democrat-controlled House and Senate in 2009-2010, President Obama never passed into law any global warming legislation. Now the issue is deader than a doornail -- despite the efforts of the Environmental Protection Agency to enact new regulations that would never pass Congress.

So what happened to the global warming craze?

Corruption within the climate-change industry explains some of the sudden turnoff. "Climategate" -- the unauthorized 2009 release of private emails from the Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom -- revealed that many of the world's top climate scientists were knee-deep in manipulating scientific evidence to support preconceived conclusions and personal agendas. Shrill warnings about everything from melting Himalayan glaciers to shrinking polar bear populations turned out not always to be supported by scientific facts.

Unfortunately, "green" during the last three years has also become synonymous with Solyndra-style crony capitalism. Common-sense ideas like more windmills, solar panels, retrofitted houses and electric cars have all been in the news lately. But the common themes were depressingly similar: few jobs created and little competitively priced energy produced, but plenty of political donors who landed hundreds of millions of dollars in low-interest loans from the government.

Of course, it didn't help that the world's most prominent green spokesman, Nobel laureate Al Gore, made tens of millions of dollars from his own advocacy. And he adopted a lifestyle of jet travel and energy-hungry homes at odds with his pleas for everyone else to cut back.

But even without the corruption and hypocrisy, sincere advocates of man-made global warming themselves overreached. At news that the planet had not heated up at all during the last 10 years, "global warming" gave way to "climate change" -- as if to warn the public that unseasonable cold or wet weather was just as man-caused as were the old specters of drought and scorching temperatures.

Then, when "climate change" was not still enough to frighten the public into action, yet a third term followed: "climate chaos." Suddenly some "green experts" claimed that even more terrifying disasters -- from periodic hurricanes and tornadoes to volcanoes and earthquakes -- could for the first time be attributed to the burning of fossil fuels. At that point, serially changing the name of the problem suggested to many that there might not be such a problem after all.

Current hard times also explain the demise of global warming advocacy. With high unemployment and near nonexistent economic growth, Americans do not want to shut down generating plants or pay new surcharges on their power bills. Most people worry first about having any car that runs -- not whether it's a more expensive green hybrid model.

Over the last half-century, Americans have agreed that smoky plants and polluting industries needed to be cleaned up. But when the green movement began to classify clean-burning heat as a pollutant, it began to lose the cash-strapped public.

While the Obama administration was subsidizing failed or inefficient green industries, radical breakthroughs in domestic fossil-fuel exploration and recovery -- especially horizontal drilling and fracking -- have vastly increased the known American reserves of gas and oil. Modern efficient engines have meant that both can be consumed with little, if any, pollution -- at a time when a struggling U.S. economy is paying nearly half a trillion dollars for imported fossil fuels. The public apparently would prefer developing more of our own gas, oil, shale, tar sands and coal as an alternative to going broke by either importing more fuels from abroad or subsidizing more inefficient windmills and solar panels at home.

We simply don't know positively whether recent human activity has caused the planet to warm up to dangerous levels. But we do know that those who insist it does are sometimes disingenuous, often profit-minded, and nearly always impractical.
 

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution


Alec Rawls: Here is a short bio I sent to press people covering the Flight 93 memorial debacle. My training is as an economist. I was in the PhD program in economics at Stanford until my research led me more towards moral theory and constitutional law, at which point I dropped the program and started working on my own. I was writing a book on republicanism (the system of liberty under law) for World Ahead Publishing when I discovered that the Flight 93 memorial was going to be a terrorist memorial mosque.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT5xKrqgpj8]The Laughing Cat - YouTube[/ame]
 
Last edited:
Ah, dumb people. This post can be called - simple math and the dumbing down of AGW believers. And some with degrees! Test question: what does a running average do if you have increasing data that flattens out for a fraction of the total data run length? Answer: it "hides" the flattening. But don't expect AGW worshipers to figure out this bit of fifth grade math - it's beyond them and calls into serious question their intelligence. Well, for those who value learning and SCIENCE, here is the real story of what BEST is telling us:

Last week, a research team at Berkeley led by a former climate change skeptic released a study of global temperatures that intended to set the record straight on controversial data collected by the East Anglia Project, NASA, and other organizations that have acted as advocates for action based on anthropogenic global warming. Professor Richard Muller put together a graph of the data that supposedly showed warming from 1800 (roughly the beginning of the Industrial Era in Europe) through 1975, and then a steeper rise in temperatures that appears unstopped. When this data was released, newspapers and other media proclaimed it the end of AGW skepticism and demanded capitulation from the “deniers.”

This led to an interesting e-mail exchange between myself and one of my blogging friends, whom I won’t name because (a) the e-mails weren’t really intended for publication, and (b) he’s a good guy who is passionate about doing what’s right. I got an e-mail from him challenging me on this point, saying the correlation between rising temperatures and mass release of CO2 was undeniable. I explained to him that AGW skepticism doesn’t rest on the notion that global temperatures aren’t rising, but that the AGW crowd has yet to show causation between CO2 release and actual warming. He replied that correlation was enough to prompt action, but that’s neither scientific or wise. Correlation only shows that two trends parallel each other; if one isn’t the cause of the other, then “solutions” designed to change one trend won’t impact the other anyway — and it will waste time, money, and perhaps lives while the perceived problem continues unabated.

As it turns out, the correlation isn’t exactly equal, either. A closer look at the data and a Daily Mail interview with one of Muller’s team shows that the chart hides the fact that no warming has occurred in the last 11 years, as has been repeatedly pointed out:

Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.

Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers.

Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious ‘Climategate’ scandal two years ago. …

In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.

‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’

Let’s take a look at Muller’s chart, and then compare it to the chart for the last 13 years — which the Daily Mail labels an “inconvenient truth”:

global-temps-lg.jpg


First, let’s look at the top chart. A closer reading of the top chart shows that, relative to the 1950-1980 average baseline BEST uses, temperatures didn’t actually warm at all until sometime during the Great Depression, so the entire first century of the Industrial Era apparently had no impact — in a period where the dirtiest of mass energy production processes was in widest use (coal). Temperatures then started to slowly rise during an era of significantly reduced industrial output, thanks to a lengthy economic depression that gripped the entire world. What we end up with is a 30-year spike that also includes a few years of reduced industrial output, starting in the stagnating 1970s where oil production also got restricted thanks to onerous government policies and trade wars.

In climate terms, a 30-year spike is as significant as a surprisingly warm afternoon in late October. Man, I wish we were going to have one of those today.

But then look what happens in the past 11 years in the bottom chart. Despite the fact that the world’s nations continue to spew CO2 with no significant decline (except perhaps in the Great Recession period of 2008-9), the temperature record is remarkably stable. In fact, it looks similar to the period between 1945 and 1970 on the top chart. If global temperature increases really correlated directly to CO2 emissions, we wouldn’t see this at all; we’d see ever-escalating rates of increase in global temperatures, which is exactly what the AGW climate models predicted at the turn of the century. They were proven wrong.

And in fact, Curry explains that the failure of those models finally has some scientists going back to the drawing board:

‘This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting,’ Prof Curry said. ‘Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.’ …

‘Of course this isn’t the end of scepticism,’ she said. ‘To say that is the biggest mistake he [Prof Muller] has made. When I saw he was saying that I just thought, “Oh my God”.’

In fact, she added, in the wake of the unexpected global warming standstill, many climate scientists who had previously rejected sceptics’ arguments were now taking them much more seriously.

They were finally addressing questions such as the influence of clouds, natural temperature cycles and solar radiation – as they should have done, she said, a long time ago.

And what of Muller? When confronted by the Daily Mail about the data from the past 11 years, he denied that temperatures had plateaued, and then admitted that the data shows exactly that:

Yesterday Prof Muller insisted that neither his claims that there has not been a standstill, nor the graph, were misleading because the project had made its raw data available on its website, enabling others to draw their own graphs.

However, he admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’, although, he added, it was equally possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified.

‘I am baffled as to what he’s trying to do,’ Prof Curry said.

Even perfect correlation doesn’t prove causation, and this is far from being perfect correlation. AGW scientists have still failed to prove that CO2 is responsible for the moderate rise in temperatures, nor have they proven their hypothesis that the rise is irreversible, or even bad. As I pointed out to my friend, Greenland hosted a farming community for over 200 years before getting swallowed in ice in a global-cooling period that helped spread disease, death, and starvation throughout Europe. If Greenland once again becomes farmland, then we might be entering a somewhat more remarkable climate period in human history, but until then this is more properly referred to as weather.

BEST did help settle the temperature record, an important step in climate research and a necessary corrective to the manipulations discovered in Climategate. But they didn’t “prove” anthropogenic global warming or any kind of causation, and even their correlation proves rather weak.
 
A laughing cat won't change math - sorry doc. And it does not rebut the facts. Resorting to such tactics is a tacit admission you have lost the argument.

Next.

:popcorn:
 
This is too easy. Almost boring. But if minds can be changed by facts, there you will find me. Even if I feel like I am talking to a bunch of rocks.
 
Sorry, forgot the link to the above story: Surprise! No warming in last 11 years ? Hot Air

Here is the link to the Daily Mail story: Scientists who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague | Mail Online

Another scientist exposed. When are you people going to catch on? How many emails and code comments from climategate is it going to take? How many exposures of agendas and data is required before you realize 1+1=2? I mean it is that easy to see unless you are blinded by ideology that one, the science has been faked and the data manipulated and continues to be so, and two, the emails show a concerted effort to destroy careers of those who disagreed with AGW and did so in a concerted and planned way, and finally three, that the code itself has comments that LITERALLY STATE "The following is Mike's trick to hide the decline" (and this is not isolated - it is all over the damn place)?

When will facts and science trump blind ideology? Until that happens, anybody who states AGW is settled is, to put it bluntly, acting like an idiot and an ideologue. The facts are there for all to see, the emails are there for all to see, the code is there for all to see. The fact nobody appears to be reading it on this forum indicates to me that a objective approach has been eschewed for a blind worship of faux priests masquerading as scientists as you bow at the alter of stupidity and worship the god of ignorance. What ever happened to real science?

Now I have to go and finish up my cold fusion project. I will be announcing it next week and expect everyone to buy into what I say and not question it. If you do, you are a holocaust denier and hate human beings and the planet. [:o)]

And I expect everyone to pay me $100 in this country for my hard work with no questions asked. And that is per week. If you can't afford it, to bad - it's for planet man. Don't pay me and I'll turn off your electricity. Oh, and the UN will want its piece as well. We are calling it the crap-and-tirade tax. If you don't like it, your problem. And I don't have to prove anything to you at all. And I will get 300,000 scientists to agree with me by promising them grants from the $100/wk I get from 300 million Americans who are going to pay me. Trust me, it won't be hard with that kind of money. Getting the picture yet? ;)
 
Last edited:
I just love it when the pile-on begins and lying so-called scientists get called out. The BEST is just another example of an attempt to hide the decline. This piece does a great job calling out Mueller - a self professed climate skeptic whose mind changed after his study. Yeah right. You change from a skeptic to a believer in AGW after you go through the trouble to "hide the decline"? What do you take us for - idiots? Oh yeah, I forgot about the AGW cult worshipers who seem to think science does not require objectivity, just a consensus of people whose livelihood relies on grant money from political groups. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100114292/lying-cheating-climate-scientists-caught-lying-cheating-again/:

Lying, cheating climate scientists caught lying, cheating again

By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: October 30th, 2011

Knut.jpg

"So I'm not going to die after all? Quelle bloody surprise!"

Oh dear. I really didn't want my first blog post in a week to be yet another one about global bloody warming. Problem is, if those lying, cheating climate scientists will insist on going on lying and cheating what else can I do other than expose their lying and cheating?

The story so far: ten days ago a self-proclaimed "sceptical" climate scientist named Professor Richard Muller of Berkeley University, California, managed to grab himself some space in the Wall Street Journal (of all places) claiming that the case for global warming scepticism was over. Thanks to research from his Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures (BEST) project, Professor Muller stated confidently, we now know that the planet has warmed by almost one degree centigrade since 1950. What's more, he told the BBC's Today programme, there is no sign that this global warming has slowed down.

Cue mass jubilation from a number of media outlets which, perhaps, ought to have known better – among them, the Independent, the Guardian, The Economist and Forbes magazine. To give you an idea of their self-righteous indignation at the supposed ignorance of climate change deniers, here is the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson in full spate:

We know that the rise in temperatures over the past five decades is abrupt and very large. We know it is consistent with models developed by other climate researchers that posit greenhouse gas emissions — the burning of fossil fuels by humans — as the cause. And now we know, thanks to Muller, that those other scientists have been both careful and honorable in their work.

Nobody’s fudging the numbers. Nobody’s manipulating data to win research grants, as Perry claims, or making an undue fuss over a “naturally occurring” warm-up, as Bachmann alleges. Contrary to what Cain says, the science is real.

Problem is, Eugene, almost every word of those two paragraphs is plain wrong, and your smugness embarrassingly misplaced.

As you know, I had my doubts about Muller's findings from the start. I thought it was at best disingenuous of him to pose as a "sceptic" when there is little evidence of him ever having been one. As for his argument that the BEST project confounds sceptics by proving global warming exists – this was never more than a straw man.

Now, though, it seems that BEST is even worse than I thought. Here is what Muller claimed on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme:

In our data, which is only on the land we see no evidence of [global warming] having slowed down.

But this simply isn't true. Heaven forfend that a distinguished professor from Berkeley University should actually have been caught out telling a lie direct. No, clearly what has happened here is that Professor Muller has made the kind of mistake any self-respecting climate scientist could make: gone to press with some extravagant claims without having a smidgen of evidence to support them.

Here, to help the good professor out, is a chart produced by the Global Warming Policy Foundation's David Whitehouse. It was plotted from BEST's own figures.

GWPFchart.jpg


Note how the 10 year trend from 2001 to 2010 – in flat contradiction of Muller's claims – shows no warming whatsoever.

What's odd that BEST appears to have gone to great trouble – shades of "hide the decline", anyone? – to disguise this inconvenient truth. Here is a graph released by BEST:

BESTCrap.jpg


The GWPF's David Whitehouse is not impressed:

Indeed Best seems to have worked hard to obscure it. They present data covering more almost 200 years is presented with a short x-axis and a stretched y-axis to accentuate the increase. The data is then smoothed using a ten year average which is ideally suited to removing the past five years of the past decade and mix the earlier standstill years with years when there was an increase. This is an ideal formula for suppressing the past decade’s data.

Muller's colleague Professor Judith Curry – who besides being a BEST co-author chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology – is even less impressed.

There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’

Heh. Another climate scientists reputation bites the dust. Like I said: RIP. And no laughing cat is going to change that fact. As a matter of fact, whose laughing now? The alarmists are losing. Finally. [:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)]
 
Yea they are. Glen Beck and you come to mind.

Wow. What a cutting rebuttal against the exposure of globull warming caused by humans. A inane comeback that makes me wonder if you were hitting the bong when you wrote it. Guess I win this argument as you can't refute the data - nobody can - without looking foolish.

Suffering from delusions of adequacy are we? I would guess you are part of the Flea Party. The fleabaggers who counsel rape victims their camps to shut up and not go to the police when they are attacked. NIIIIICE. Great group of people you are associating with there. Your comment is exactly the type of comeback I would expect from a fleabagger. Drivel, with no substance.
 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xdQNMEY5-c]"Are you sure?" by Stephen Colbert as read by Sam Waterston - YouTube[/ame]
 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QquTUR9nbC4]Stephen Colbert on The O'Reilly Factor - YouTube[/ame]
 
Correction - you ain't that fucking smart.


Goddam dude, is this shit still going on after the latest studies? You may very well be a competent and talented electrical engineer, but if you are indeed competent, you're the most teatarded electrical engineer I've ever seen. .... Talk about cognitive dissonance.

You remind me of a dude stranded in the desert desperately seeking a lifeboat. .... What you gonna do with it if you find one?... Use it for shade?
 
Last edited:
Goddam dude, is this shit still going on after the latest studies? You may very well be a competent and talented electrical engineer, but if you are indeed competent, you're the most teatarded electrical engineer I've ever seen. .... Talk about cognitive dissonance.

You remind me of a dude stranded in the desert desperately seeking a lifeboat. .... What you gonna do with it if you find one?... Use it for shade?

Goddam dude, did you read what I posted? The BEST study - the darling of the AGW community - has just been exposed as manipulating the data to "hide the decline" by some colleagues of the author of this Berkley study. I have the graphs there to prove it above. This was supposed to the "THE STUDY" to end all studies and guess what the real conclusion is when you don't manipulate the data by using rolling averages (cooling has stopped). Ooops.

So, goddamn dude, don't you see how your own statement is directed at you and not me. The latest studies are refuting your claims. Climate scientists are running for the hill. They are losing influence. Goddamn dude, when are you going to get a brain and read the facts. Cognitive dissonance? I would call the inability to read a simple fact that is easily demonstrated to a fucking sixth grader who understands what an average is and then see where the conclusion takes you not just cognitive dissonance, but blind stupidity.

When you are ready to argue the facts of the BEST study, touted by your side as the the final study to prove it all just got slammed and slammed hard, then I will take you seriously. Until then, you are nothing but a single sheep baying away the talking points like a robot stuck on repeat and the CPU turned off. The bud is off the rose. When you are ready to argue facts and prove to me you know what the hell you are talking about, then we can talk. Until then you just look like an idiot.
 
Last edited:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-UpI1Ct-dg]Update: Barney Frank Clip on Daily Show Last night - YouTube[/ame]
 
Uh-oh, more BEST data refuting anthropogenic global warming. This is getting too funny. And before anybody responds, how about reading the facts this time:

“Monster” levels of greenhouse gases in 2010? Hot Air

Read the whole thing, but here is the money quote:

‘This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting,’ Prof Curry said. ‘Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.’ …

‘Of course this isn’t the end of scepticism,’ she said. ‘To say that is the biggest mistake he [Prof Muller] has made. When I saw he was saying that I just thought, “Oh my God”.’

In fact, she added, in the wake of the unexpected global warming standstill, many climate scientists who had previously rejected sceptics’ arguments were now taking them much more seriously.

They were finally addressing questions such as the influence of clouds, natural temperature cycles and solar radiation – as they should have done, she said, a long time ago.

Now go and read about just one of the warming periods of the past - the Medieval Warming period and how CO2 increased 600 years post warming. Looks like CO2 is about to be conclusively and scientifically knocked off the list as the cause of global warming. Like I said - RIP. Now do a little homework before responding and show some intelligence.
 
Goddam dude, did you read what I posted?

I stopped paying attention to anything you post which doesn't involve a direct assault on me months ago. .... Goddam dude, be the scientist you were trained to be instead of a fuckin' teatard.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top