Effect of climate warming on Lake Superior

yamahauler

Active member
Is it possible that the large earthquakes and the resulting shift it the plates changes weather? Maybe currents in the water change to bring in warmer water to one side of a glacier which would also raise temps there. Also, doesn't the axis on the earth move some as well when we have the large earthquakes. I am not saying I really believe this, but have heard it batted around a few times so I figure I would post it to see what anyone thinks.
 

Skylar

Super Moderator
Staff member
We probably won't hear anything about this on the world news tonight. :)






New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

By James Taylor | Forbes – 20 hrs ago


New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."
In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.


The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.
The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.
When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.
 

Hoosier

Well-known member
This guy manages $50 million in studies (sorry for the long post):

http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-arctic-scientist-under-investigation-082217993.html

APNewsBreak: Arctic scientist under investigation

By BECKY BOHRER - Associated Press | AP – 6 mins ago

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — A federal wildlife biologist whose observation that polar bears likely drowned in the Arctic helped galvanize the global warming movement seven years ago was placed on administrative leave as officials investigate scientific misconduct allegations.
While it wasn't clear what the exact allegations are, a government watchdog group representing Anchorage-based scientist Charles Monnett said investigators have focused on his 2004 journal article about the bears that garnered worldwide attention.
The group, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, filed a complaint on Monnett's behalf Thursday with the agency, the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement.
BOEMRE told Monnett on July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending an investigation into "integrity issues." The investigator has not yet told him of the specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, the watchdog group's executive director.
A BOEMRE spokeswoman acknowledged there was an "ongoing internal investigation" but declined to get into specifics about it.
Whatever the outcome or the nature of the allegations, the investigation will likely fuel the ongoing fight between climate change activists and those who are skeptical of scientists' findings about global warming. The probe also focuses attention on an Obama administration policy intended to protect scientists from political interference.
The complaint seeks Monnett's reinstatement and a public apology from the agency and inspector general, whose office is conducting the probe. The group's filing also seeks to have the investigation dropped or to have the charges specified and the matter carried out quickly and fairly, as the Obama policy states.
BOEMRE has barred Monnett from speaking to reporters, Ruch said.
Monnett could not immediately be reached Thursday.
BOEMRE was created last year in the reorganization of the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, which oversaw offshore drilling. The MMS was abolished after the massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The agency was accused of being too close to oil and gas industry interests.
Monnett, who has coordinated much of BOEMRE's research on Arctic wildlife and ecology, has duties that include managing about $50 million worth of studies, according to the complaint. The agency spokeswoman said other agency scientists would manage the studies in Monnett's absence.
According to documents provided by Ruch's group, which sat in on investigators interviews with Monnett, the questioning focused on observations that Monnett and fellow researcher Jeffrey Gleason made in 2004.
At the time, they were conducting an aerial survey of bowhead whales, and saw four dead polar bears floating in the water after a storm. They detailed their observations in an article published two years later in the journal Polar Biology.
In the peer-reviewed article, they said they were reporting, to the best of their knowledge, the first observations of polar bears floating dead offshore and presumed drowned while apparently swimming long distances in open water.
Polar bears are considered strong swimmers, they wrote, but long-distance swims may exact a greater metabolic toll than standing or walking on ice in better weather.
They said their observations suggested the bears drowned in rough seas and high winds. They also added that the findings "suggest that drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open water periods continues."
The article and presentations drew national attention and helped make the polar bear a symbol for the global warming movement. Former vice president and climate change activist Al Gore mentioned the animal in his Oscar-winning global warming documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."
The complaint said agency officials harassed Gleason and Monnett, and that they received negative comments after the journal article. Gleason took another Interior Department job; he didn't respond to an email and a BOEMRE spokeswoman said he wouldn't be available for comment.
In May 2008, the polar bear was classified as a threatened species, the first with its survival at risk due to global warming.
Since then, the fight between climate change activists and skeptics has intensified. In 2009, skeptics seized on some 1,000 stolen emails that showed prominent scientists stonewalling critics and discussing ways to keep opponents research out of peer-reviewed journals.
They claimed the emails as proof that the global warming threat was hyped. Several reviews have since vindicated the researchers' science, although some of their practices — in particular efforts to hide data from critics — were criticized.
Ruch said that criminal investigators with no scientific background are handling Monnett's case, even though it is an administrative matter.
According to a transcript, provided by Ruch's group, Ruch asked investigator Eric May, during questioning of Monnett in February, for specifics about the allegations. May replied: "well, scientific misconduct, basically, uh, wrong numbers, uh, miscalculations."
Monnett said that alleging scientific misconduct "suggests that we did something deliberately to deceive or to, to change it. Um, I sure don't see any indication of that in what you're asking me about."
 

xsledder

Active member
...The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed. ...

ahh...computer models. I love computer models. I can make them give any result I want.
 

mezz

Well-known member
ahh...computer models. I love computer models. I can make them give any result I want.

Ahh Yes, just like the GW/CC supporters have done & continue to do.

Oh, & BTW, According to the Great Lakes Aquarium, "Lake Superior froze over to nearly 100% in 1996, 96% in 1994, 95% in 1972. The last records of complete ice coverage on the big lake is 1979 & 1962." In addition to this, I also believe it was very close in 2003 & 2009, however, there are no official records of it as yet. So much for the theory of dramatic increases in water temp & less ice due to the aforementioned anomolies. Can you spell C Y C L I C! Peace Out!:rolleyes:-Mezz
 
Last edited:

440_chazz

Member
Honestly, I got about 2/3rds of the way through and just stopped reading. It's the typical: "Take some unusual weather happenings in the past few years and blame climate change for it."

I wonder if this next winter, if the ice cover is like it was a few years ago (reaching nearly historical highs), the "researcher" will somehow tie that into climate change and global warming.

I hate to sound brash or sarcastic, but global warming and climate change is the goose that has laid the golden egg for a lot of climate type folks that would otherwise be doing something entirely different for their occupation. We went through this in the late 70's and early 80's with El Nino. Just about any unusual weather happening that occurred was blamed on El Nino. Quite a few scientists were given grants to make connections. Problem is, El Nino happens about every 3 years on average and the connections started dropping like flies and the money to make the studies dried up. So onto the next big thing: Global Warming/Climate Change. Difference is, many of the accusations being made with GW/CC will not be proven to be true or false for quite some time. So we will just have to wait it out.

I have only lived here for 12 years, but monitored the weather happenings very closely for about 10 years prior to that and have also studied weather records for Lake Superior and the UP for as long as they go back. What I have found is that there are periods of mild winters and periods of harsh winters. I suspect that we are just in a period or milder winters.

-John

Is there a "like" feature on this board, because I likey!
 

dcsnomo

Moderator
Ahh Yes, just like the GW/CC supporters have done & continue to do.

Oh, & BTW, According to the Great Lakes Aquarium, "Lake Superior froze over to nearly 100% in 1996, 96% in 1994, 95% in 1972. The last records of complete ice coverage on the big lake is 1979 & 1962." In addition to this, I also believe it was very close in 2003 & 2009, however, there are no official records of it as yet. So much for the theory of dramatic increases in water temp & less ice due to the aforementioned anomolies. Can you spell C Y C L I C! Peace Out!:rolleyes:-Mezz

Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe GW (global warming) and CC (climate change) are NOT the same thing.

This is how I understand it:
Climate change is the changing of our climate over a period of time. It is not the discussion of causality.
"Climate change is a significant and lasting change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods ranging from decades to millions of years. It may be a change in average weather conditions or the distribution of events around that average (e.g., more or fewer extreme weather events). Climate change may be limited to a specific region or may occur across the whole Earth."(Wikipedia)

Global warming is the assertion that climate change is being caused by the continued burning of fossil fuels and the actions of man. It attempts to cite the burning of fossil fuels as the partial to significant cause of climate change.
"Global warming is the continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans. Global warming is caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, resulting from human activities such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels"(Wikipedia)

So Mezz, when you say it is cyclic, I would ask you "what is cyclic?" And you would say, "The changing of the climate" Yup, and you would be right...Climate Change. Doesn't prove or disprove the global warming theory.

Is our climate changing?
Yup, it changes all the time

How is it changing?
I'm not a scientist, but since s**t is melting all over the place I would guess, perhaps incorrectly, that it is getting warmer.

Why?
I dunno
 

arcticgeorge

New member
Well said John and glad to hear it. I have a friend and i showed him all the latest on Global warming such as Fox and Glenn beck calling it the "Greatest Scam in History" And the founder of the TWC John Coleman. I was wondering did the Big Lake freeze over in 2009? A local paper the Lake Gogebic Times says it was a matter of hours of one day it froze completely in 09.
 
L

lenny

Guest
"Ozone deterioration is also pretty much a proved fact"

Pretty much factual, does that mean the facts are almost factual, I just wanna know what percentage it is before it becomes a fact. I guess whatever you say it will be will be so I'll help you out and conclude that a non-factual statement can now be factual if it 84% correct, pretty much!!!!

As far as my gas hungry vehicle, your statement s says a lot. People who are aggravated by other peoples vehicles are a great indication on how their agenda is promoted by imposing regulation.

Answer me a question anonomoose, would you personally like to see vehicles that consume larger amounts of fuel be regulated to use less? Do you despise 2 stroke sleds? Do you become ill when you go past a lake and see a family boating and having a ball, wasting fuel and dumping emissions into our atmosphere?

I also have lost the few pounds I wanted to loose and I feel great, 72 3/4" tall and 187 lbs.

I have no problem with your position on GW. I do not think, for the most part that your camp is intentionally promoting negative ideals but to grasp at an idea that is not factual and go to great lengths that has deep impacts on the general public is irresponsible and non-scientific.

I suggest the old age approach of collecting data, observing reactions and making predictions to see if they correspond, building upon observation with great testing, eliminating error to a minimal.

GW already is failing miserably in the strictest of sense because it ignores the collected observations of huge variance of cyclic FACTS,,,pretty much,,,lol. GW makes a leap to man made causes. It takes the liberty to assume we can fix something we are not sure we caused. It's a poor idea based on fear and is not based on science. Science is not what it used to be and many people inject personal opinion into the equation resulting in a huge error. There is enough evidence to rule out gw in it's current state. Lets embrace what we have observed, what evidence we have and not make the leap and add to uncertainties.

It is kinda funny though how you presume the opposition camp of GW is similar to those of the flat earth mentality. I personally see that as another picture of a multitude of free thinkers spewing out radical statements because they feel threatened by the more traditional approach to life. I am not saying I am right but just stating a observation.

I do read deep into things but often am on track. I do not claim to be right just stating what I see and understand, still willing to learn.

Moose, keep in mind post on forums seem harsh at times. I went back and re-read this one and it's not how I wanted it to sound so please don't be offended. I'm just trying to get deep into things, sorry if I come off as a jerk, I know I sometimes do and it is not my intention.
 
Last edited:

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Can someone pass the popcorn?

What kind?

Air popped? stove popped with oil? stove popped without oil? microwave popped? Jiffy popped? still on the cob? Orville Reddenbocker? Act 1, 2, 3? Picked from the back 40?

Oh yea, the experts already told us which is best in another thread. :rolleyes:

-John
 

700classic

New member
What kind?

Air popped? stove popped with oil? stove popped without oil? microwave popped? Jiffy popped? still on the cob? Orville Reddenbocker? Act 1, 2, 3? Picked from the back 40?

Oh yea, the experts already told us which is best in another thread. :rolleyes:

-John
LOL! I like the kind with sarcasm!
 

matti

Active member
"What kind?

Air popped? stove popped with oil? stove popped without oil? microwave popped? Jiffy popped? still on the cob? Orville Reddenbocker? Act 1, 2, 3? Picked from the back 40?"

What kind has the lowest carbon footprint?
 

anonomoose

New member
"Ozone deterioration is also pretty much a proved fact"

Pretty much factual, does that mean the facts are almost factual, I just wanna know what percentage it is before it becomes a fact. I guess whatever you say it will be will be so I'll help you out and conclude that a non-factual statement can now be factual if it 84% correct, pretty much!!!!.

Okay, if you are going to fly speck me, let me clarify my statement about ozone layer at the pole. Take the time to do some research and don't just take the word of a collection of respected scientists, who used scientific data and a computer which collected the data and spit out images of the ozone depletion. Research the data and come to the same conclusions, or depart and give a RATIONAL reason for your disagreement. After all debates should be distinct and separate such differences as climate change and global warming.

Science rarely deals in 100 percents, but in more practical levels that reflect current thinking with the evidences that are available AT the CURRENT TIME.

New technologies emerge and enable even more sophisticated measurements and data which are again put into computers to yield models. None is precise, only a reflection of the collected data and the programing of the models. Does that mean that we should toss it out? Should we scoff at the results because, personally or financially we gain by doing so?

This bag of money thing goes both ways....there are those who would prefer to dispel anything that might curb their ability to make more money with less. And for every scientific explanation you have an equal and opposite effort to dispute evidences that some of the best minds and best trained personnel have put together. Nothing is absolute....so, let me answer you a question back....at what point would you believe in global warming, and/or climate change?

I suspect that there are those who would float around in ark and scoff....I suggest that we are contributing to increased temperatures, and that there is little harm in trying to curb that....even if it means shutting your wave runner down ten minutes sooner, or cleaning up that gas guzzler, or denying that your two smoker isn't smokin up the environment.

Denial is a wonderful thing...it works great til all he!! breaks loose then, excuses run rampant.

As far as my gas hungry vehicle, your statement s says a lot. People who are aggravated by other peoples vehicles are a great indication on how their agenda is promoted by imposing regulation. .

You lost me on this one....if what you mean is that we, as a society collectively impose regulations that improve the environment, then I am all for it. Those who remember the 60's and leaded fuel, and traffic in urban areas remember how dirty the snow got so quickly and that in heavy traffic the air stunk. Is it bad that we cleaned that up? Riding behind a tractor trailer was pure torture....black smoke billowed out from the side stacks. Is it bad that now you hardly can tell if you are following one because they are so much cleaner? I won't bother to answer which camp I want to belong to here. My grandkids and their grandkids would thank me.


I also have lost the few pounds I wanted to loose and I feel great, 72 3/4" tall and 187 lbs..

That's great news...

... but to grasp at an idea that is not factual and go to great lengths that has deep impacts on the general public is irresponsible and non-scientific.

Who discredits or determines whether it is factual, or non-scientific....this isn't like the tobacco institute proclaiming that smokes can be healthy because they tend to chase skeeters away and therefore, no west Nile diseases, is it? It is the BEST, facts, and THE most scientific evidence we can put together at THIS moment in time. Is it perfect, should we all stop worrying and carry on like nothing is wrong because some non-science guy from FORBES, decides that a sliver of information was not exactly correct?

Answer me this question....WHAT IF THEY ARE SPOT ON TARGET and we ARE doing this....wouldn't you want to try and do something about it? Would you still want to keep on keeping on, knowing that you ignored some pretty obvious information that had we done something about it sooner we might have saved the PLANET??? Or are you sort of screw the next generation sort of a guy.....and don't worry if you are, there have been plenty like that before you.

... I suggest the old age approach of collecting data, observing reactions and making predictions to see if they correspond, building upon observation with great testing, eliminating error to a minimal.

That is EXACTLY what they are doing right now....


... GW already is failing miserably in the strictest of sense because it ignores the collected observations of huge variance of cyclic FACTS,,,pretty much,,,lol

Actually, global warming is not a guess, it is FACT. You measure temperatures all over the globe at the same time each day. Then you average the temperatures together...that is a math problem. You obtain the average temperature for that location and compare it to average temperatures over the same period over the last 20 or more years and you get an idea....no, you get to say whether or not the globe is warming. This isn't conjecture, it is a FACT....one of the few things that can be put in the FACT category.

Now whether we are causing it, most think we are, or whether it is just a great cycle isn't as easy to prove because man hasn't been around that long to gather the evidence. Does that mean we can dismiss it all as a bunch of fanatics and extremists who have an agenda and are making money by doing studies from grants from the government???? I have no answer for you there. My gut feeling is, based upon my hand burning at the end of my tailpipe and use of hair spray cans, and burning of the forests in areas that have been forested since before man is....yes we are, and we can improve on it, by ASSUMING that we are and taking steps to minimize the footprint.

After all....what do we have to lose....it's not like we got other places we can go, eh?


The globe IS warming, climates continue to change, what is causing it or whether we can do anything about it, or if we are contributing to this accelerating change is something we have to yet figure out. Sitt'n on the side lines and second guessing isn't going to improve a thing. Some respectable questioning is healthy, but ignoring obvious signs and pretending they aren't there is NOT healthy...at least for the generations who will inherit this big marble.
 

xsledder

Active member
Okay, if you are going to fly speck me, let me clarify my statement about ozone layer at the pole. Take the time to do some research and don't just take the word of a collection of respected scientists, who used scientific data and a computer which collected the data and spit out images of the ozone depletion. Research the data and come to the same conclusions, or depart and give a RATIONAL reason for your disagreement. After all debates should be distinct and separate such differences as climate change and global warming.

Science rarely deals in 100 percents, but in more practical levels that reflect current thinking with the evidences that are available AT the CURRENT TIME.

New technologies emerge and enable even more sophisticated measurements and data which are again put into computers to yield models. None is precise, only a reflection of the collected data and the programing of the models. Does that mean that we should toss it out? Should we scoff at the results because, personally or financially we gain by doing so?

This bag of money thing goes both ways....there are those who would prefer to dispel anything that might curb their ability to make more money with less. And for every scientific explanation you have an equal and opposite effort to dispute evidences that some of the best minds and best trained personnel have put together. Nothing is absolute....so, let me answer you a question back....at what point would you believe in global warming, and/or climate change?

I suspect that there are those who would float around in ark and scoff....I suggest that we are contributing to increased temperatures, and that there is little harm in trying to curb that....even if it means shutting your wave runner down ten minutes sooner, or cleaning up that gas guzzler, or denying that your two smoker isn't smokin up the environment.

Denial is a wonderful thing...it works great til all he!! breaks loose then, excuses run rampant.



You lost me on this one....if what you mean is that we, as a society collectively impose regulations that improve the environment, then I am all for it. Those who remember the 60's and leaded fuel, and traffic in urban areas remember how dirty the snow got so quickly and that in heavy traffic the air stunk. Is it bad that we cleaned that up? Riding behind a tractor trailer was pure torture....black smoke billowed out from the side stacks. Is it bad that now you hardly can tell if you are following one because they are so much cleaner? I won't bother to answer which camp I want to belong to here. My grandkids and their grandkids would thank me.




That's great news...



Who discredits or determines whether it is factual, or non-scientific....this isn't like the tobacco institute proclaiming that smokes can be healthy because they tend to chase skeeters away and therefore, no west Nile diseases, is it? It is the BEST, facts, and THE most scientific evidence we can put together at THIS moment in time. Is it perfect, should we all stop worrying and carry on like nothing is wrong because some non-science guy from FORBES, decides that a sliver of information was not exactly correct?

Answer me this question....WHAT IF THEY ARE SPOT ON TARGET and we ARE doing this....wouldn't you want to try and do something about it? Would you still want to keep on keeping on, knowing that you ignored some pretty obvious information that had we done something about it sooner we might have saved the PLANET??? Or are you sort of screw the next generation sort of a guy.....and don't worry if you are, there have been plenty like that before you.



That is EXACTLY what they are doing right now....




Actually, global warming is not a guess, it is FACT. You measure temperatures all over the globe at the same time each day. Then you average the temperatures together...that is a math problem. You obtain the average temperature for that location and compare it to average temperatures over the same period over the last 20 or more years and you get an idea....no, you get to say whether or not the globe is warming. This isn't conjecture, it is a FACT....one of the few things that can be put in the FACT category.

Now whether we are causing it, most think we are, or whether it is just a great cycle isn't as easy to prove because man hasn't been around that long to gather the evidence. Does that mean we can dismiss it all as a bunch of fanatics and extremists who have an agenda and are making money by doing studies from grants from the government???? I have no answer for you there. My gut feeling is, based upon my hand burning at the end of my tailpipe and use of hair spray cans, and burning of the forests in areas that have been forested since before man is....yes we are, and we can improve on it, by ASSUMING that we are and taking steps to minimize the footprint.

After all....what do we have to lose....it's not like we got other places we can go, eh?


The globe IS warming, climates continue to change, what is causing it or whether we can do anything about it, or if we are contributing to this accelerating change is something we have to yet figure out. Sitt'n on the side lines and second guessing isn't going to improve a thing. Some respectable questioning is healthy, but ignoring obvious signs and pretending they aren't there is NOT healthy...at least for the generations who will inherit this big marble.

Instead of turning off the wave runner ten minutes early, how about typing a few thousand less words and shut the computer down sooner to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases produced at the power plant to power the computer using all that electricity while you type.

This is just one of those practice what you preach statements. :)

I find is it very easy for someone to tell someone else what to do when it doesn't affect them. To me, GW is social engineering through fear and emotion. Definitely emotion when someone suggests we should do it for the kids. How do we know the cure isn't worst then the disease?
 
Top