Has global warming stopped?

[Gullvann]

That was the heading of an infamous article in the New Statesman by David Whitehouse, a former BBC science editor with a doctorate in astrophysics. He continued:

"Global warming stopped? Surely not. What heresy is this? Haven’t we been told that the science of global warming is settled beyond doubt and that all that’s left to the so-called sceptics is the odd errant glacier that refuses to melt?

Aren’t we told that if we don’t act now rising temperatures will render most of the surface of the Earth uninhabitable within our lifetimes? But as we digest these apocalyptic comments, read the recent IPCC’s Synthesis report that says climate change could become irreversible. Witness the drama at Bali as news emerges that something is not quite right in the global warming camp.

With only few days remaining in 2007, the indications are the global temperature for this year is the same as that for 2006 – there has been no warming over the 12 months.

But is this just a blip in the ever upward trend you may ask? No.

The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly."

http://www.newstatesman.com/scitech/2007/12/global-warming-temperature

The rest of the article is very interesting, and I recommend it.

He ends it with:

"Certainly the working hypothesis of CO2 induced global warming is a good one that stands on good physical principles but let us not pretend our understanding extends too far or that the working hypothesis is a sufficient explanation for what is going on.

I have heard it said, by scientists, journalists and politicians, that the time for argument is over and that further scientific debate only causes delay in action. But the wish to know exactly what is going on is independent of politics and scientists must never bend their desire for knowledge to any political cause, however noble.

The science is fascinating, the ramifications profound, but we are fools if we think we have a sufficient understanding of such a complicated system as the Earth’s atmosphere’s interaction with sunlight to decide. We know far less than many think we do or would like you to think we do. We must explain why global warming has stopped. "


What do you guys think about the whole global warming debate?

- Is it settled?
- Is science ever settled?
- Is consensus a viable scientific principle(ask Galileo)?
- Is the debate open and accepting?
- How are "dissenters" treated?
- If the threat is so dire, why does not the politicians get their act together?


Anyhow, I was inspired by the debate at the end of the article. It was truly inspiring to read the debate following that article in the New Statesman. I know the readership is probably a bit more narrow than here at DU, but is is fun to read well educated and well articulated phd's having a debate.

Yet, I am very curious what your opinions are my dear Duers?


For a counterpoint. Mark Lynas had a follow up article where he attacks Whitehouse:

Has global warming really stopped?

http://www.newstatesman.com/environment/2008/01/global-warming-lynas-climate

I think this is relevant, as climate is a major part of the new agenda of the Obama Presidency, and they are looking for a climate tsar.

What do you guys and girls think?

[hatrack]

1. Have CO2, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, etc., suddenly stopped absorbing longwave radiation?

If not, then the unequivocal, inescapable answer to Whitehouse's question is "no".

Worth investigating:

http://www.realclimate.org

[Gullvann]

7. I have been ill the last few days, and started reading the

new statesman. A well respected leftist magazine. Which is also a staunch advocate in the fight against global warming.

Personally, I am a fan of Al Gore.

But, I found this interesting nonetheless. I am curious by nature. Anti authoritarian.

If global temperatures have stood still since 1998. Why has not the media told us?

And to your question:

"Have CO2, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, etc., suddenly stopped absorbing longwave radiation?"

I guess not. Why has it not gotten warmer?


But, back to the media?

One of the issues is that if there is one warm summer in Oslo. Aha. Global warming. Every little weather singularity that supports global warming is heavily featured. Hurricane Catrine? Global warming.

Now, that Hurricanes are not as bad anymore? hmmm. New theories. Global warming alleviates hurricanes....

Then this summer. As I guess, the last decades's temperatures started to sink in. There came a new theory. Global warming has taken a break for some years, but will be back with a vengance.


It is all starting to sound a bit weird to me.


So I want debate. Sorry Al Gore :-)

[Divine Discontent]

8. I saw Oslo, and 'Aha' and thought this was a discussion about Norway's wonderful band! shucks

[jpak]

14. More to the point have CO2, CH4, N2O increased over this interval - and trapping more solar energy

in the Earth's climate system?

The answer is yes.

Is the pH of ocean surface waters declining (acidifying) in response to anthropogenic CO2?

The answer is yes.

Did Arctic summer sea ice retreat to historic summertime lows in 2007 and 2008?

The answer is yes.

Is the Earth's hydrological cycle responding to increased global mean temperatures?

The answer is yes.

Is the whole notion that global warming has ceased a steaming heap of right wing pseudoscience horseshit?

Yup - no debate there....

http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc.html

:fistbump:

[Gullvann]

I only know the arctic sea ice.

I live up here.

2008 was better, i.e. more ice than the record low from last year. This fall we have seen a record freeze.

I think you are right though.

But, 2008 will be colder than 2007. What if next year follows this trend?

It bears watching.

Afterall, as scientists we need to check our hypothesis against the empirical data coming in.

I appologize if I sound like a :dunce:

:-)

[jpak]

21. I lived and worked on the Antarctic Peninsula, the Ross Sea and Kane Basin (Canadian Arctic)

I have seen the effects first hand.

And I know the literature.

Your assertion is a steaming heap.

[Gullvann]

23. What assertion is a steaming heap?

I hope the steaming heap does not contribute to any warming effect :-P

[jpak]

28. This one - "Has global warming stopped?"

n/t

[Gullvann]

33. Consider it a question....

It did have a question mark at end?

In scientific circles we might call it a hypothesis...


Cheers.

[jpak]

36. Consider it horseshit

cheers

[Gullvann]

39. It was quite charming to make your acquaintance.

Though, I am not entirely familiar with your particular vernacular.

A good weekend to you as well :-)

[jpak]

40. You asked the question

What do you guys and girls think?

and got an answer

:hi:

[XemaSab]

10. Your response:

[Gullvann]

13. Oh, I forgot to add.

Lynas is connected I think to realclimate.org. And, I spend a bit of time there as well.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. "Statistically the same."

2007 is "statistically" the same as 2006, but statistically higher than 1900, and 2100 will be statistically higher than 2007.

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

This guy should stick to journalism.

[Gullvann]

74. Really think so?

Ok, this really was a shameless bump :-P

[PetrusMonsFormicarum]

3. Politicians don't get their acts together

because they're like the frog in the pan on the stovetop. The water is heating up, soon to boil, but the frog just sits there.

Many learned folk have already agreed that the Earth itself is capable of generating a great deal more greenhouse gases (at times, in a single event) than the combined, accumulated perma-fart that has come from human activity of the last two hundred years.

The difference now is that we are here, smart enough to tell that something is radically changing in our atmosphere. The Earth itself may recover (will recover--the Earth is a magnificent self-regulating organism). The question we must ask ourselves is: will humanity recover?

[Gullvann]

9. Yeah. As the Independent wrote:

"Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars

Meet the world's top destroyer of the environment. It is not the car, or the plane,or even George Bush: it is the cow. "

Apparently livestock is responsible for 18 percent of green house gases.

What if temperatures don't rise anymore?

This year will be another cold year.

Colder than last year.

[jpak]

16. Humans are the sole reason why cows exist in the numbers they do today.

Deniers never fail to....ummmm.....FAIL

[Gullvann]

18. I know.

Perhaps that is why I subconsciously want to ask questions.

I am on the Atkins diet :-P

[jpak]

29. You like pizza?

:evilgrin:

[Gullvann]

35. I love pizza.

But, I get worried about the fact that my poor pepperoni and cheese might be destroying our planet :-)

You?

And, to be serious.

How many DUers have dropped their cars. Like I have.

How many DUers have stopped eating meat. Or at least started limiting their consumption. Here you can add the whole rain forrest issue as well.

Why do the UN have a major climate summit at Bali. Where all the dignitaries fly in on private jets?

Why not just use the net? Teleconferencing anyone? Tell the AIG and the UN Climate panel. It would be good for both of them.


See what I am getting it at?

[Blue_In_AK]

4. I tend to believe that it has NOT stopped,

although I will note for the record that Alaska had one of its coldest summers on record this past year. http://www.adn.com/news/environment/story/518517.html

One explanation offered was the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which may have bought us some time. I hope it stays cold up here for a while, because I'd hate to see all that trapped methane up north get released into the atmosphere. http://www.adn.com/front/story/491365.html

[Gullvann]

11. Off course you also has to look at the ice melting

glaciers.

I am open minded. I still believe in global warming.

I have just started to ask a few questions.

I think that is healty.

Sorry for all the sentences starting with I :-P

The summer of 2007 was a record low for north pole ice.

It was a bit better this summer. And, this falls has seen a record freeze?


The point is that you cannot really talk about global warming in a one year perspective. That's just weather.

But,the same thing goes the other way. One hot summer does not mean the acopalypse.

[Recursion]

5. Sigh

The Red Sox won the world series in 1915 and 2004. So the team hasn't been getting better lately.

1998 was a very, very hot year for several reasons. Now, look at that graph and tell me if you think the best model for the data is a stationary process, or a process with a growing mean?

[Gullvann]

15. Whitehouse was using temperature date from the British Government Met

Office which is slightly different from that of Gistemp, and shows a clearer leveling out trend than Gistemp.

And, even the Gistemp graph lacks 2008. Which will be colder than 2007.

Look, I am not trying to argue that global warming does not exist. It obviously has for the last few decades. But, I think there ought to be allowed a discussion about what is happening?

There has been some sort of leveling out. Heck, that phenomenon has even been incorporated into the latest global warming theories. Mainstream UN... Is that it will rebound and get warmer in 2009-2010. Some German scientists got some attention this spring with their modeling which predicted global warming would stop for a decade or so, before coming back with a vengance. Do keep up :-)

Total ice in the antarctic has been growing, I believe for a few years. The arctic just bounced back from a record low last summer. With a record freeze this fall.

It's interesting is all :-)

[tabasco]

17. Your user name is incorrect.

It should be Gullible.

[Gullvann]

20. How come?

I am just asking questions.

Gullible people tend not to.

[jpak]

19. Fucking denier horseshit

Recent Antarctic ice mass loss from radar interferometry and regional climate modelling

Nature Geoscience 1, 106 - 110 (2008)

ABSTRACT

Large uncertainties remain in the current and future contribution to sea level rise from Antarctica. Climate warming may increase snowfall in the continent's interior1, 2, 3, but enhance glacier discharge at the coast where warmer air and ocean temperatures erode the buttressing ice shelves4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Here, we use satellite interferometric synthetic-aperture radar observations from 1992 to 2006 covering 85% of Antarctica's coastline to estimate the total mass flux into the ocean. We compare the mass fluxes from large drainage basin units with interior snow accumulation calculated from a regional atmospheric climate model for 1980 to 2004. In East Antarctica, small glacier losses in Wilkes Land and glacier gains at the mouths of the Filchner and Ross ice shelves combine to a near-zero loss of 461 Gt yr-1. In West Antarctica, widespread losses along the Bellingshausen and Amundsen seas increased the ice sheet loss by 59% in 10 years to reach 13260 Gt yr-1 in 2006. In the Peninsula, losses increased by 140% to reach 6046 Gt yr-1 in 2006. Losses are concentrated along narrow channels occupied by outlet glaciers and are caused by ongoing and past glacier acceleration. Changes in glacier flow therefore have a significant, if not dominant impact on ice sheet mass balance.

Antarctic Ice Shelf Collapse Tied to Global Warming

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2006/2006-10-16-03.asp

LONDON, England, October 16, 2006 (ENS) - Scientists on Monday reported the first direct evidence linking the 2002 collapse of an Antarctic ice shelf to global warming. The researchers found that stronger westerly winds in the northern Antarctic Peninsula, fueled primarily by human-induced climate change, were responsible for the dramatic summer warming that led to the retreat and collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf.

"This is the first time that anyone has been able to demonstrate a physical process directly linking the break-up of the Larsen Ice Shelf to human activity," said lead author Gareth Marshall from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS).

The study, by BAS scientists as well as researchers at the University College London's Centre for Polar Observation and Modeling and the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Belgium, was published in the "Journal of Climate."

The 1,255-square mile ice shelf collapsed into the Weddell Sea over a 35-day period in early 2002. Scientists believe the 220-meter thick shelf had been in place for some 5,000-12,000 years

<more>

[Gullvann]

22. Why the abusive language?

As I told you, I believe in Global warming.

Heck, I joined DU because I was so excited that Gore got the Nobel prize.

I have even taken the consequences of it. I do not drive. I walk for 90 percent of my transportation. When I need to, I use our collective transport. I don't travel by plane anymore.

I walk the walk. Literally.

Except, for the meat part. :-)

[jpak]

34. Because of statements like this...

"Total ice in the antarctic has been growing, I believe for a few years."

no. it. has. not.

Antarctic Ice Loss Speeds Up, Nearly Matches Greenland Loss

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/antarctica-20080123.html

PASADENA, Calif. - Ice loss in Antarctica increased by 75 percent in the last 10 years due to a speed-up in the flow of its glaciers and is now nearly as great as that observed in Greenland, according to a new, comprehensive study by NASA and university scientists.

In a first-of-its-kind study, an international team led by Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., and the University of California, Irvine, estimated changes in Antarctica's ice mass between 1996 and 2006 and mapped patterns of ice loss on a glacier-by-glacier basis. They detected a sharp jump in Antarctica's ice loss, from enough ice to raise global sea level by 0.3 millimeters (.01 inches) a year in 1996, to 0.5 millimeters (.02 inches) a year in 2006.

Rignot said the losses, which were primarily concentrated in West Antarctica's Pine Island Bay sector and the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula, are caused by ongoing and past acceleration of glaciers into the sea. This is mostly a result of warmer ocean waters, which bathe the buttressing floating sections of glaciers, causing them to thin or collapse. "Changes in Antarctic glacier flow are having a significant, if not dominant, impact on the mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet," he said.

To infer the ice sheet's mass, the team measured ice flowing out of Antarctica's drainage basins over 85 percent of its coastline. They used 15 years of satellite radar data from the European Earth Remote Sensing-1 and -2, Canada's Radarsat-1 and Japan's Advanced Land Observing satellites to reveal the pattern of ice sheet motion toward the sea. These results were compared with estimates of snowfall accumulation in Antarctica's interior derived from a regional atmospheric climate model spanning the past quarter century.

<more>

[Gullvann]

37. Ok. I am sorry. In both senses.

I am sorry that I was wrong. And, I am sorry that the antarctica is melting. I spent last night reading the discussion from that article in the New Statesmen, and I though I read there that the antarctica had been increasing.

I appologize.

Anyhow...

How do we get people, and governments to take real action.

And, real action would be painful for most people.

Our way of life, like mine, will not be the same.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

46. "Heck, I joined DU because I was so excited that Gore got the Nobel prize. "

Did you now.

[Gullvann]

67. I did...

As far as I can remember?

I drink and smoke much so my recollection is not perfect?

You have a better memory than me?

I certainly joined in the discussion here then.

[kestrel91316]

6. Principles of basic physics, specifically the Greenhouse Effect,

have not been altered by the wishful thinking of denialists, if that's what you mean. CO2 and methane have not suddenly ceased to be greenhouse gases. And mankind has not suddenly ceased to spew CO2 into the atmosphere with gleeful abandon.

My AC is running full blast today. It's about 95 outside. It only got down to 75 last night. Gee, what do YOU think?

[Gullvann]

24. I know.

We spew green house gases into the atmosphere like never before...

Ironically, a global depression might be the only thing to really stop this development.

As for your weather. That is weather. Not climate. There are both geographical and temporal differences.

[JJ]

12. I call BULLSHIT

"The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001."

Just made up "facts" that aren't facts at all, and aren't even sourced.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

What do you want on your pizza?

[Gullvann]

26. As I have written elsewhere on the thread.

He is British. He uses the data from the British Met Office.

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html

This data primarily differs from Gistemp by not having an equally warm 2005. Otherwise the same trend is apparent.

I love pepperoni on my pizza :-)

[JJ]

42. I forgot Britain was on a different planet.

You're right global warming has stopped, in fact it's twenty degrees colder outside here than it was just a month ago. Quick, cut down some trees and drill for oil.

The trend is readily apparent, and you'll also notice a cyclical nature to the rise, levels off for a few years, then rises faster for a few. To the untrained eye it even appears to be approximately an 11 year cycle. Coincidentally, the Sun goes through an eleven year cycle of activity. But I'm sure that's just a coincidence. Just like the periods of maximum and minimum solar activity follow the variations of temperature rise almost exactly.

Oh, yeah. One last thing, look carefully at the data in the link you just posted. Those graphs show temperature anomaly, not temperature. The all still show a continuing rise, just that it has slowed over the last 3 years or so.

They do not show that warming is stopping, just that the rate isn't quite as fast over the last few years. Coincidentally, the 11 year solar cycle last peaked around 2001-2002, and is now about at minimum. Just a vast liberal conspiracy we have with the sun to make freepers look foolish

Ooops, maybe you should have looked first, as your own "evidence" just proved you wrong.

[Gullvann]

43. Here is my point mate.

I have had a few beers now.

So I will make it short and sweet.

There has been a leveling off since 1998 according to the Met office.

That is the data.

That is all :-)

I don't know if it means anything.

It might just be noise in the larger sense.

It's just there.

If you look at the data though, it seems like the previous "stalls" seem to have happened after two major volcanic eruptions. Look at the graph from realclimate posted elsewhere on the thread.

The sun is obviously interesting. Scientists in both Norway, Sweden and Denmark have looked into it recently. There seems like there might be something to it?


Ok, it was not short and sweet. It was long and rambling.

Sorry :-)

[jpak]

61. "The sun is obviously interesting."

It certianly is....

Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature

Mike Lockwood, Claus Fröhlich

Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences

Abstract

There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth's pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

[Gullvann]

71. I think I said that elsewhere:

That this paper might indicate that Co2 might have such a large influence that it might have counteracted any influence from the sun.

Hence, making our situation more urgent, and our need to take action more dire.

[G_j]

25. SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS: ARCTIC IS WARMING AT UNPRECEDENTED RATE,

http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/041108.asp


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Press contact: Nicole St. Clair, NRDC, (202) 289 -2404 [phone], cell; Eben Burnham-Snyder, NRDC, [phone] cell
If you are not a member of the press, please write to us at [e-mail] or see our contact page.

NEW SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS: ARCTIC IS WARMING AT UNPRECEDENTED RATE, BURNING OF FOSSIL FUELS IS CULPRIT

Ice Melt to Accelerate Warming, Cause Sea Level Rise Dangerous to Coastal States

Pressure on U.S. To Act

WASHINGTON, D.C. (November 8, 2004) -- The Arctic is warming rapidly, with the loss of polar ice projected to accelerate global warming as well as contribute to sea level rise and flooding, according to a comprehensive four-year scientific study of the region conducted by an international team of 300 scientists that was officially released today.

According to the scientists' most conservative estimates, about half the summer sea ice in the Arctic is projected to melt by the end of this century, along with a significant portion of the Greenland Ice Sheet, as the region warms an additional 7ºF to 13ºF by 2100. Rising sea levels are already observed and are predicted to accelerate as warming continues, according to the final report of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA).

The study confirms that the warming is human-caused, through heat-trapping emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. The United States is the largest world contributor of those emissions, yet has failed to enact limits.

The report comes out at a time of increasing pressure on the Bush administration to enact U.S. emissions reductions. During election week, the Queen of England privately pressured UK Prime Minister Tony Blair to press the U.S. on global warming policy, and she opened a "climate change summit" of senior government officials from the UK and Germany to discuss the problem. Russian president Vladimir Putin signed the Kyoto Protocol, thus bringing the accord into effect worldwide.

"President Bush needs to change his approach to global warming in light of the damage already being seen in the Arctic," said Dr. Daniel Lashof, Science Director of the NRDC Climate Center. "It is now clear we have to cut the pollution that causes global warming to prevent dangerous changes in the climate. The purely voluntary approach taken in the President's first term will leave the nation and the world in great danger from the threat of global warming."

The assessment was commissioned by the Arctic Council, a ministerial intergovernmental forum comprised of eight nations, including the United States, and six Indigenous Peoples organizations; and the International Arctic Science Committee, an international scientific organization appointed by 18 national academies of science. The assessment's findings and projections are being released today and will be presented in detail at a scientific symposium in Reykjavik, Iceland starting tomorrow.

"The impacts of global warming are apparent now in the Arctic," said Robert Corell, chair of the ACIA. "The Arctic is experiencing some of the most rapid and severe impacts on earth. The impacts of global warming on the region and the globe are projected to increase substantially in the years to come."

Additional findings include:
..more..

[Gullvann]

27. I know.

That is a somewhat old article.

The arctic melted at an alarming rate.

Way faster than even the UN had forecasted.

The record year was last summer. This summer is rebounded somewhat. And this fall there was a record freeze.

Scientists are speculating that a new pattern is developing. With more melt off in spring. And more rapid freeze in the fall. The sinus curve seems to tighten it you get my meaning.

[ThePowerofWill]

30. Maybe it's decreased solar activity?

I know i heard on a NPR discussion that we have been going through a period where the levels of solar flares, and storms has at least for the moment dropped way off. Lack of solar activity has been blamed on the so called little ice age.

[Gullvann]

41. I think even the IPCC estimates

that the Sun accounts for some 20 percent of climate variation.

And, yes. The Sun has been unusually silent for a while.

Here is the current weather at the sun. As you can imagine. It's quite sunny:

?PHPSESSID=q43qovrsvjbb57rg0bndef2qu5


But, hardly any sunspots. An new cycle has just started though. An astrophysists around the world are following it. It has started very weak. And, you are correct. The maunder sun spot minimum coincided with a VERY cold period. Just now, there is coming some new science that talks about how sun spots affect rain. To me it seems that we have much left to learn.

Let's not turn into the Catholic Church in the middle ages.

Let's not.

There are some interesting theories that the sun spot cycles might have a large role to play. Off course that does not necessarily mean that Co2 is out of the question. Both might play a role.

I don't know. I just find it interesting to be curious.

The day I stop being curious and asking questions is the day I die.


Even if I get called names, and people call my qestions for steaming pieces of horse dung.

That is just me though :-)

[NickB79]

70. Wrong. Solar forcing is FAR less than 20%

"* Total radiative forcing from the sum of all human activities is a warming force of about +1.6 watts/m²
* Radiative forcing from an increase of solar intensity since 1750 is about +0.12 watts/m²"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report#Factors_that_warm_or_cool_the_planet

[Narkos]

31. I'd recommend sticking with consensus of the major

scientific bodies....NASA, NAS, IPCC, etc. Unless they make some major changes in their thinking about GW, you just come off sounding like another denialist.

[Gullvann]

44. I sort of agree, I guess.

I am in full support of the better safe than sorry doctrine.

I am sure you are familiar with it.

There was a cool youtube video on it.

So I want us to take action. I want us to take action now.

But, I never want us to stop asking questions.

As,we say in Norway. It's allowed to have to thoughts in your head at the same time.

BTW. The Met office also believes that we are in a major warming trend, despite the last decades's relative stall and denounces anyone who would "misuse" their date. Just for the record.

[Narkos]

60. Stop using links to GW denialists, and then we'll take you seriously

There's a thin line between honest skepticism and pathologic denialism. Using a well-known global warming skeptic who is not a climatologist makes me question your motives.

[Gullvann]

64. Do you want to know my motives?

I have to be bried, because my flatmate want me to bring the lap top downstairs and play some music.

I consider myself somewhat of a global warming activist.

Being ill, the last few days, I started reading older issues of the New Statesman. A well respected leftist magazine who always has been, and is a strong advocate for fighting global warming.

Just last month. They started telling their readers that we have to get ready for massive nuclear development.

Are you ready for that?

Basically, I saw the excellent debate between intelligent people after those articles.

I hoped to recreate a little bit of it here at DU.. And have some fun doing it.

I don't know how it went. I certainly spent my night here. Even forgot going out to the pubs. lol.

And, I am not even a skeptic for goodness sake. I am a believer. Are you happy? I am not an infidel.

Consider me more like Doubting Thomas in the new testament.

Cheers.

[Narkos]

72. DU's probably not the best place to debate the science on GW

As you are aware, we have the occasional troll who likes to post the latest "debunk" of global warming, so people are on their guard. Maybe this is more of an American phenomena, where progressives are sick and tired of having to defend AGW from the denialist crowd. Very few in here are expert enough to have a genuine understanding of all the issues anyways. I assume you're familiar with Realclimate.org? You might find a more receptive audience there.

[Gullvann]

73. Thank you for your response.

I know realclimate.org. I even posted in the OP a link to an article from Lynas who is closely associated with realclimate. Anyhow. I had fun. I hope people learned something.

And, I will be carefully watching the Svalbard Ice. The polar bears depend on it.

So far it looks good.

Have a good night, mate :-)

Cheers.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[Richard D]

38. The sun has been unusually quiet . . .

. . . and cooler than normal this year. But a new solar cycle is starting and things should start heating up again.

You can't look at a year or two and see a pattern.

[Gullvann]

45. Exactly.

That is all I am saying.

Though, I will add, I want us to take actions now. Anyhow. stopping to be reliant on fossile fules is good anyhow. So let's do it.

But, let us also follow the actual empirical data as they come in...

I find it hard to digest that such a viewpoint should be even controversial?

I guess I am sceptical to religion. Both the religious kind, and the secular kind.

:-)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

48. Plus, the NY Times had an article today about how

the smog produced by China may be slowing global warming, as the smog produced by other countries in the 1970s did, because it reflects sunlight back.

(Not that smog is a good thing, given the health effects.)

[Gullvann]

49. Yeah. Global dimming.

It's an old theory. From several decades ago, but it's now making a comeback.

If I am cynical. It's making a comeback because the scientist needs an explanation for the apparent stall in the temperature rise..

Cheers.

[jpak]

63. There is no link between solar activity and global mean temperatures over the last 20 years

In fact, they have opposite trends...

Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature

Mike Lockwood, Claus Fröhlich

Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences

Abstract

There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth's pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

[Gullvann]

65. That is interesting.....

Does that mean that our Co2 output might have counteracted by far any solar effects?

[Gullvann]

66. And, by the way... Thank you so much for the answer.

That is what I was hoping this thread could be like.

Reasoned discussion without insults.

As we say in Norway.

Tusen takk.

[fascisthunter]

47. as if you gave a damn

people like you are literally trying to prevent people from doing anything about it. Trying to stir doubt about facts long known about....

You ain't fooling no one but yourself... get a clue.

[Gullvann]

51. Look mate.

I live in Norway.

I vote for the socialist left.

I do not drive. I do not fly.

I want government to take a far harsher stance.

In fact, that is one of the reasons that I have started to ask questions...

Why the hell does not the governments, for instance in the EU, do anything substantial?

And, I find it quite ironic that a guy who calls himself fascisthunter attacks a person for asking questions.

Quite ironic.

[fascisthunter]

52. I'm Not Your Mate and I Could Care Less Where You Are From

nor would I believe anything you had to say anyways. I read that pile of shit you consider a legitimate question and I take it very seriously when people like you try to spread misinformation about something as serious as Global Warming.


weird

[Gullvann]

54. Cool.

Good luck in hunting fascists :-)

If you look in the mirror you might even have some luck.

Bye.

[Warren DeMontague]

50. Do you think there is a "debate" about evolution, too?

I'm just, as you say, curious.

[Gullvann]

53. Evolution. I spent a year, some years ago reading biology.

Debate about Evolution.

Sure there is.

Mostly on exactly how it happened.


There seems to have been positions of equilibrium, broken up by shorter periods of rapid change.

Then, back to a new equilibrium.

Science without debate is dead science.

I hope you follow that debate as well. It is very interesting.

Cheers.

[Warren DeMontague]

68. Right, but to say there is debate in legitimate scientific circles about WHETHER evolution

via natural selection is taking place and is responsible for life as we know it on Planet Earth is completely untrue.

There isn't any "debate" on that point, it is generally accepted science. Science can continue to examine the mechanisms and details of evolution without chucking the foundation of evolutionary biology. The debate pertains to specifics about how. The only "debate" about whether evolution is responsible for the diversity of life on Earth exists in the minds of religious people posing as scientists to advance an agenda.

Similarly, with global warming- very few legitimate scientists not on petroleum industry payrolls think that the human race can continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere of Earth without raising temperatures. CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat. (See Venus) There may be debate about how much and how soon and what effects the warming will have, but the idea that there is "debate" about whether or not this is happening is totally fraudulent.

[Gullvann]

69. I agree with you....

Though, I find it kind of funny.

As I did in the initial New Statesman article.

That there is such controversy over the fact that warming seems to have stalled for a bit...

It has done that a couple of times before. In the eighties, and in the ninties....

But, the trend was still always upwards...

I agree with the IPCC that that it is unfortunately likely to happen this time as well.

As for evolution: As I have said elsewhere.... I am a sometimes pastafarian.... But, when I am in my God believing phase, I am in awe how God could create such an awsome systeme as evolution.

Pretty cool :-)

Cheers.

[NoGOPZone]

55. No nt

[Gullvann]

56. Well, according to the Met Office. It has- For a decade.

Off course, the Met Office believes that it's a minor blip. Noise if you will, in the long term data.

Time will tell.

[codjh9]

57. "If the threat is so dire, why does not the politicians get their act together?" is a ridiculous

question - we haven't had The Adults in charge for EIGHT YEARS - these dumb-asses only care about little green pieces of paper! And this quarter's profits!

[Gullvann]

58. I agree.

I am not talking about Bush.

I am talking about my government.

A Government consisting of the Social Democrats, the socialist left and the green party.


All three have global warming on the top of their agenda.

Yet, our Co2 output is going up every year.

Same in the rest if Europe.

Ironically, I think the U.S. has had a slower growth of green house gases than us.


Most likely, since you exported your manufacturing to China.

But, still quite a paradox in todays world.

[Doctor Cynic]

59. Piracy is surging off the Somalia coast, so I say yes.

[Gullvann]

62. Another fellow co-religionist :-)

I salute you.

Hail the Pastafarians :toast:

(though, I do switch between a watered out love your neighbour Christianity, pure agnosticism, and the glorious faith.)

So we should stop the new UK-lead EU naval effort to get rid of those pirates.

The mission's success could lead to global catastrophy :nuke: