Climate change puts ecosystems on the run, researchers say

Since the climate has been cooling for the last 10 years or so, why all the alarm about "warming?"

Hasn't that whole concept been discredited, the science shown to be the result of massive fraud?

Why do we still see new articles referencing "warming" as if it were fact?

It is very suspicious. I guess the idea is to repeat the big lie until people accept it, but it isn't working.

claudius- best you go get back to your 16 centuary mindset an let the rest of the people on this planet deal with these pressing issues. if you wish to deny science thats fine, your right to do so, but dont harp on about anything thats been invented by science since the enlightenment if your going to continue this line of science denial.

What a curious comment.

I have my undergraduate in physics & have my doctorate in a health care. I am anything but a "science denier" whatever that phrase may mean.

When I prescribe a medication, I like to think that the research and the information provided by that research have been done by honest scientists. If I find that product A was researched by a group of corrupt scientist who were trying to promote an agenda, and that the data is not reliable, I will think more than twice about using anything that derived from that research.

I might also point out that someone who is willing to accept information from corrupted sources is not using his scientific mind, if he has one, since the essence of science is deep skepticism.

If that caution seems like science denial to you, so be it. But you had better hope whoever you are seeing for your health care is depending on solid research, and not fraudulent research, as is the undeniable case in AGW climate research

claudius- best you go get back to your 16 centuary mindset an let the rest of the people on this planet deal with these pressing issues. if you wish to deny science thats fine, your right to do so, but dont harp on about anything thats been invented by science since the enlightenment if your going to continue this line of science denial.

What item is he denying? The Greenhouse Warming hypothesis was proven incorrect in 1909 so the current harping on it isn't science.
Sure, climate changes, it's been doing that for 4 billion years. All we are seeing now is short term weather change that some people are making big money by hyping.

It is scientifically proved that many models, if not all, show results in accordance with the data fed in. The climate change, up or down, is yet to be studied more deeply. Cross sections of antartic ice, sections of trees in different locations show deeper variations into both directions. Apart from that, in accordance with the type of balance we know, may be the reality is somehow different, were some species die out some other came to fill the gap. Even they are news about species being discovered right now. The whole thing of the global warming has political overtones, it has not yet been proved what sort of phenomena really is. It should be very important to establish the real real origin of the changes, if any, and then have a sort of credible projection of the results. For a substancial discussion.

ok cluadius i'll go with this imaginary "healthcare docterate" you say you have, whatever that means, you say you prescibe so you'll be aware that 70 odd % of the drugs you scipt are derived from tropical rainforests, and when we look at the cancer supressent properties of a plant family like bromliads you appreciate how important these resources are but your general posts are in opposition to saving these bio-diverse regions. you say cliamte change isn't happening, business as usuall eh, logging and oil industry extraction from the amazon isn't having a contributing effect on climate. no i am sceptical about your said quelifications, so as a health care professional you believe that baxter researchers don't have an agenda? laughable.

I believe that an inteligent fluid communication should exclude mutual exchange of qualifing adjectives, if we want to be objective. The main problem doest not lie in the increasing of the temperature only, I think that at the present stage there is enough evidence of that happening, the question is that there are areas in which is hapennin the reverse phenomena. Apart is still unclear that the whole change is totally atributable to human activity or whether the human activity is more noticeable in some areas. There are, also, I insist inwhich the fauna and flora is already evolving into new forms, that has to be told if we are to be honest with the appreciations. Other question remains still unaswered: is the present a change due to a different factors appart and solely from human interference?

ok cluadius i'll go with this imaginary "healthcare docterate" you say you have, whatever that means,

Ad hominem attacks are the last resort of the incompetent.

Also I have said nothing regarding my opinion of rain forests, etc.

What I have said is that a huge scientific fraud has been recently documented that has tainted climate research to the extent that the sources cannot be trusted.

Claudius - you are badly misinformed. While its true that some incriminating emails from one small set of climate researchers have surfaced, there are many other groups and independent researchers unassociated in any way from that group. In addition, while its true that tree-ring data has really started to be discredited, there are many other independent lines of research which show warming to be real.

The evidence that the last decade is cooling is this. The average temp in 2008 was lower than the average for 1998. They are 10 years apart, its true, however, averaging the temperatures for the last 10 years shows them to be higher than the previous 10, in the face of global forces like La Nina that SHOULD make the last overall decade a lot cooler. The last 20 years have been the warmest on record since record keeping started in the 1880's.

Other lines of research supporting warming include shifts of the seasons, shifting of the ranges that species inhabit from historical norms, rapidly retreating glacier extent worldwide except for a small number at the tip of South America, retreat of summer arctic sea ice extent and depth, measured temperatures using various methods, satellite measurements of temps in the lower and upper atmosphere, antedocal reports of very unusual permafrost shifts, widespread erosion and destruction of Alaskan coastal settlements, ice core measurements of CO2 concentrations for the last 2 million years exactly tracking our best estimates of historical temperatures, etc.

In fact the quality and quantity of data supporting both global warming and mankind's responsibility for it is simply overwhelming.

So in fact, I find it quite appropraite that anyone that denies that global warming is true is one or more of the following:

a) woefully ignorant of the data or details of the enormous evidence,
b) simply scientifically ignorant in general and under educated or under intelligent,
c) in the pay directly or indirectly of some of the parties (fossil fuel industry, mining interests, etc.) who make hundreds of billions of dollars every year from the status quo,
d) simply naive and willing to swallow the tiny and thin evidence against warming without questioning the source,

Keep in mind the incredible stakes and money involved in casting doubt on the climate science and keeping anything from being done about it as long as possible. The money involved in keeping people smoking by lying about the danger and addictiveness of tobacco was minuscule in comparison.

The main source for the bad science and few professional scientists questioning the warming evidence is ultimately the American Petroleum Institute and their pet scientists. They are following a long tradition of professional doubters that include the Tobacco Research Institute and many politically organized think tanks around the world.

I am repeatedly amazed at the amount of climate change denial and plain idiocy that appears in these comments. It's really, really, really sad.

c) in the pay directly or indirectly of some of the parties (fossil fuel industry, mining interests, etc.) who make hundreds of billions of dollars every year from the status quo,

Then you'd be interested to know that just about all of the research comming out agreeing with the AGW hypothesis is being funded by fossil fuel companies and carpet bagging "green tech" companies.

The article above was written based on research paid for by Freeman Spogli Co. A broad based investment firm with an overwhelming amount of their holdings within the alternative energy sector.

well claudius, having you harp on about ad hominem attacks is ironically hypocritical, in you 1st post you state theres been a massive fraud, and therefore the climate scientists as fraudsters and in your 2nd post you call climate, and in relation to this thread, ecologists, corrupt. if thats not a slanderous ad hominem attack on two scientific discipline and the scientists that study these areas, then i dont know what is. yet you cry foul play when your hypocrosy is pointed out. like i said earlier i find your assertions that you hold any science qualification quite questionable.

I totally agree that the level of climate change denial is amazing and idiotic. Here is a link to a letter recently signed by 18 prominent scientific organizations - stating their belief that global climate change is occurring, and primarily driven by human activity. The letter refers to multiple independent lines of evidence. How much more science would it take Claudius - and please - not your opinion - that is irrelevant - the data and the science are relevant. Read the letter - and tell me you believe all these scientific groups are conspiring to carry out a hoax, and risking their credentials as scientists - come on!!!
http://www.aaas.o...tter.pdf

David

Here is a link to a letter recently signed by 18 prominent scientific organizations - stating their belief that global climate change is occurring, and primarily driven by human activity.

Don't you realize that by typing the above, then following it with a statement on opinion being irrelevant, you are performing an immediate hypocrtical act?

phelankell- no, djr has provided a link to a group of scientific organisations that are making a statement based on evidence, the likes of claudius are making statements based on opinion and not backed up by any evidence.

Heliocentricity was not proven via petitions and signature drives.

@Parsec/Operator et al
Science is an adversarial search for the truth as best it can be known. When one is so positive of their truth that there is no possibility of another path, that person is anti-science and simply following some cultist dogma.
The up to date science shows that the Earth appears to be slowly rewarming after a several hundred yr cooling period (LIA) that followed a much longer period (MWP)warmer than today.
Atmospheric CO2 concentration has never been observed or demonstrated to drive temperature. CO2 conc. changes always lag behind temperature changes. Remember, in science, evidence always trumps theory and models whereas, in religions and cults the opposite is always true.
The UEA/CRU FOIA release of incriminating emails, falsified and cherry picked data sets, and altered methods was not the work of a few climate "scientists" but involved, in one corrupt way or another, most of the clique of the so called scientists who wrote the IPCC climate conclusions.

This article gave a wonderfully anthropocentric view on the situation. It seems to base the concept of biomes on some antiquated definition perceiving static boundaries and overstated inflexibility. Such species as are lost to climate change are unlikely to be keystone species, such academic dishonesty...sad.

Even more problematic is the extensive fragmentation of natural habitats by human development

At least they bothered to mention the ACTUAL man-made problem here.

the data and the science are relevant

The data which is being ignored and the science which has not yet been conducted is even more relevant.

I have never denied the radiative forcing effect that CO2 has, however it has not been even close to proven that this is driving the global climate to warm. The lack of evidence aside, the very notion that such subtle chemistry is THE driver of climate change as propagandized by AGW, is absurd to me as an academic. AGW theory ignores the majority of the climate story.

@djr
look at ALL the evidence yourself. Then decide. Don't rely on (18) science organizations whose members depend on climate related grants to stay employed. Just as the oil industry input into this climate issue is highly suspect, so is anything from these organizations - as the recent CRU FOIA release has shown so well and likely why NASA flatly refuses to release, under many FOI requests, their files on this issue.
Science simply does not support AGW.

It is scientifically proved that many models, if not all, show results in accordance with the data fed in. ...

Any model will show results in accordance with data input. But, what have they done with the data? They have done things with data like this:

;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'

* * *

; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densadj=densadj+yearlyadj
;
; Now plot it too
;
filter_cru,20,tsin=densadj,tslow=tshug,/nan
cpl_barts,x,densadj,title='Hugershoff-standardised MXD from all sites',$
xrange=[1399.5,1994.5],xtitle='Year',/xstyle,$
zeroline=tshug,yrange=[-7,3],bar_color=20
oplot,x,tshug,thick=3,color=20
oplot,!x.crange,[0.,0.],linestyle=1

There is far more than a few emails in play.

Just for fun, readers ought to take a look at a fairly balanced view presented in five video segments entitled: "Doomsday Called Off." Whatever your thoughts of the video segments, I think you will find the information of interest as it mentions both sides of the AGW argument and makes known that not all climate scientists agree with the stance of the IPCC.

Especially interesting is some of the ice core data that most people never see in publications these days. The glimpses are brief but can be paused for a closer look.

http://sciencesta.../5).html

All five segments should be watched with an open mind on both sides of the equation. I do not say it makes anyone's point but the information and commentary is of interest nonetheless. It's main focus is to show that there is disagreement concerning the idea of AGW. Happy watching!

Well, at least is surfecing some diversity, a healthy aproach to a many sides of the same equation. Another side should be: while some,or many natural habitats are being altered by the action of different agents, the adaptations of the earth itself models other different ones , adaptation seems to be important. We are talking many times since the point of view of different sets of interest, human, commercial, political, but not about the drive of life itself, that should be more balanced.. and scientifical, perhaps.

For some reason, segment 5 of 5 does not now come up in the links list on the above website. Go directly to this one and ignore anything but these video segments until they all have been watched.

http://www.youtub...O1HsTVgA

After watching the video segments in full, I think it would be interesting to discuss how this video information relates to the article above.

Climategate is only the visible tip of a very dirty iceberg.

If the spotlight of public opinion melts the Climategate iceberg, it will reveal the very thing President Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell address to the nation in January, 1961:

An unholy alliance of politics and science financed with tax funds.

I am ashamed to admit that the integrity of federally financed research has been seriously compromised over the past 50 years.

Some good may come from the Climategate scandal. Future generations may have the opportunity to have an honorable career in science instead of having to violate basic principles in order to receive grant funds.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Science

How much more science would it take Claudius - and please - not your opinion - that is irrelevant -

Sorry, but I consider my opinion on this to be very relevant. It is based on significant revelations of massive fraud in the main climate research center at East Anglia.

Rather than engaging in ad-hominem attacks, why don't you address the "science" of manipulating data to produce desired results.

The problem here isn't science, but the lack of science in climate research.

And sorry, but in light of recent revelations of massive fraud in the particular scientific community engaged in climate research, a letter of opinion signed by a number of such researchers doesn't carry any weight.

It is an argument by authority - a logical fallacy. If your kind of "scientific" argument were valid, we would still believe the sun revolves around the Earth, as the authorities who tried to silence Galileo would have triumphed.

Sorry, but I consider my opinion on this to be very relevant. It is based on significant revelations of massive fraud in the main climate research center at East Anglia.

Your opinion is relevant to you - as mine is to me - but my opinion does not contribute to the science regarding global warming - or the effectiveness of a drug on a particular cancer - etc. What is relevant is the science. And to keep saying "massive fraud" regarding Climategate is preposterous. Investigations of that ONE research center are apparently on going - but the problems there do not discredit the whole body of science on global warming - consisting of many thousands of independent studies - being published in credible - peer reviewed journals. I think the evidence is overwhelming - but who cares what I think? I gave you a link to 18 scientific organizations - representing scientists who are conducting primary research - oh right your OPINION trumps that.......

There was once a time when peer-review meant something. Now, it means that the deck is stacked to one side or the other. The IPCC and CRU share interrelated data, as does NOAA and others. Given that people from several organizations were involved in the fraud of hiding the decline, it is a good bet that there will be others exposed in due time. The CRU is just the beginning. :)

What is relevant is the science.

Do you deny then, djr, that the lack of -and incomplete nature of- data and the uncertainty of what data there is, is significant?

This incompleteness and uncertainty is an integral part of the science you claim to believe is "overwhelming". What's overwhelming is how they present such uncertainty as settled science.

If you were actually a scientist you would understand this. If you refuse to acknowledge the uncertainty, or don't believe it's there, than you haven't examined the whole picture and are no scientist, just another parroting believer.

I am not a scientist - never claimed to be. Are you a scientist? What climate research have you conducted? I am not a doctor - so when I get sick - I go to the doctor - and I don't try to tell her how to treat me. I do understand uncertainty - and recognize it is part of the process. Is gravity a certainty? Well it is accepted science - but always open to re-evaluation if new data arises. My opinion is irrelevant to the reality regarding climate change. As a parrot - I am willing to defer to the researchers on the hard front of science. You on the hand have a very high opinion of your ability to know more than the scientists. I have given you documentation of large scientific organizations that concur that climate change is happening and a serious problem. You answer with childish insults - I am not impressed.

Are you a scientist?

Yes, I am. By education and profession. A part of my daily job is to analyze industrial emissions data from some of the biggest polluters in the nation and determine their compliance status with local and/or federal regulations.

My industry would benefit greatly from AGW theory being a reality (more regulations = more work/money for me), but as a scientist I cannot except it as a valid theory as it has been presented to me (the public).

I am willing to defer to the researchers on the hard front of science.

You don't have to conduct research to demand that proper scientific method be observed and that data QA/QC is conducted. I don't argue against the thermodynamic principles, I argue the certainty and significance.

I never claimed to know more than them, I don't have to know more than them, I only have to know proper scientific method and basic data quality principles to know that they are making leaps in logic instead of attempting to falsify.

Rather than engaging in ad-hominem attacks, why don't you address the "science" of manipulating data to produce desired results.

My 'ad-hominem' attack was simply pointing out that my opinion, and your opinion - are not relevant to the reality of climate change. Do you think I am incorrect?

If there has been manipulation of data - that is reprehensible - and needs to be investigated thoroughly - and if proven - people should be fired - stripped of their credentials - and a review conducted as to how this affects the science of climate change. However - do a quick google search of 'melting ice sheets'. There you will find reference to many studies - indicating that the ice sheets are in fact melting faster than the ipcc report 10 yrs ago predicted. Are all of these studies frauds? All the satellite pictures of the receding ice fields - paint shopped? Where is your evidence for this vast hoax? And this is just one small part of this field of climate science

they are making leaps in logic instead of attempting to falsify.

The problem being with this issue - is how high the stakes are. Do a google search on melting ice sheets - and look at the recent satellite data showing the ice sheets and glaciers melting faster than the IPCC report predicted. Now - how much time should we spend trying to falsify the data - in order to seek certainty? Mean time - the possibility is that the current modeling has some reality - and the feed back loops kick in - and sea levels rise by 20 feet or more. How long should we wait? Why not go balls to the wall in the development of alternative fuels - it seems like a win win to me. Then you can take your time and falsify the data - and if it is nothing to worry about - we have pushed the science of energy production a quantum leap forward - and we can stop blowing the tops of mountains to get at the coal. Can we compromise on that?

Things like scientific method and data quality are not opinion. If your study is solid why prevent skeptics from reviewing? If your data is bullet proof why destroy it? If your models are good why introduce arbitrary scalars and "tricks"?

The reality of climate change is that the climate always changes. Sometimes quite quickly (quicker than even now) often in greater magnitude.

Are all of these studies frauds?

Certainly not.

But absolutely NONE of those empirical observations can be linked to anthropogenic activity, none at all, not even indirectly. And obviously this is the crux of the biscuit.

All they have is correlation. CO2 up ice down. So what? Correlation does not prove cause, and this is what all AGW believers have to ignore to cling to their theory.

As for evidence, how about the premiere academic body of the IPCC being involved in scientific rape and murder? How about the unacceptability of weather station sites? How about failure to quantify parameters beyond CO2?

Why not go balls to the wall in the development of alternative fuels

Why not do this for energy independence? Something we need, guaranteed fact, now. Why not do this because it reduces real pollution and increases conservation? Two of the greatest actual environmental problems, guaranteed fact, now. I am not opposed to renewables and alternatives, never have been. Being opposed to AGW theory does not mean you are opposed to environmental progressivism.

AGW legislation does not care about renewables. The most it can be said to do is reverse-subsidize them, through artificially increasing the cost of fossils. How do you feel about subsidies? You should know it corrupts a free market through direct market interference. That's fascism my friend. AGW will only enable our society to continue relying on fossils, through the veil of carbon shuffling. The goal is raise your cost of living so you feel like you need a bigger government.

What here do you find disagreeable?

defunctdiety, as you've alluded to your profession an your take on this issue then heres mine. i'm an undergad studying plant science an ethnobotany, im in my late 30's and before this i was a gardener an before that i instructed climbing/mountaineering in the UK.
the points djr make are, i find, the compelling reasons for a lot of alarm at the evidence of climate change, here in my part of the UK, cornwall, and i know this is anecdotal. we have an earlier spring flowering emergance by some 16-17 days compared to 20-30 years ago and a corresponding lengthening of autumn. an increasing problem of crop pests due to extention of their life cycles, we have and are having warmer an wetter winters. we are seeing new mediterranean invasive diseases infecting our crops, sudden oak death for instance, that you have in california, has become a new subspecies here, adapting to our slightly different wetter climate, no cure, but its causing big losses of our native woodlands.

operator, with all sincerity, I thank you for sharing. Those are great and, in the case of invasive disease, disturbing observations.

Empirical observations such as yours and receding glaciers and sea ice are very valuable. It's accounts like yours, from some of the first naturalists, that are some of the most valuable data to determine that the climate is changing.

However, all that has nothing to do with whether it is caused by man. None of that is proof that man-made CO2 emissions are warming the globe.

sudden oak death for instance, that you have in california

You realize where these diseases come from right? Unsustainable management practices.

The severe anthropogenic control of wild fire prevents ecosystems, like grasslands and forests which indeed depend on fire, from being renewed with younger, adapted individuals.

Your forest loss has nothing to do with climate change.

No environmental problems stem from climate change. AGW theory ignores the real problems.

Where is your evidence for this vast hoax?

Most importantly the East Anglia emails. East Anglia acknowledges the emails are genuine, and several of the authors have also acknowledged the same.

What the emails show is a group effort to change the data to fit preconceived notions.

There have been rogue scientists who falsified data to get results, and it was a scandal when they were discovered. But they were isolated individuals out to promote their careers.

What makes this different is that it was a group of scientists cooperating with each other from across the globe at the main climate research center for the IPCC. This makes it hard to believe that the fraud does not extend to all AGW scientists, as the evidence in the emails shows them cooperating to distort the data.

The issue here is the degree to which the falsification extends, as a group project for the IPCC. One wonders who they were risking their careers for, and why.

... the compelling reasons for a lot of alarm at the evidence of climate change, here in my part of the UK, cornwall, and i know this is anecdotal. we have an earlier spring flowering emergance by some 16-17 days compared to 20-30 years ago and a corresponding lengthening of autumn. an increasing problem of crop pests due to extention of their life cycles, we have and are having warmer an wetter winters...

You were aware that they used to grow grapes in England and ferment wines? The MWP was warmer than it is now (or was in 1998.) These are natural variations to the climate and all we really need to plan on is how to live with them instead of spending trillions on how to prevent them.

The word 'consensus' always puts me on edge because any 'consensus' brings the potential danger of a phenomenon in human psychology called "groupthink: the practice of thinking or making decisions as a group in a way that discourages creativity or individual responsibility." The likelihood of a groupthink greatly increases when individuals, who present arguments counter to the beliefs of the group, are ignored, personally attacked, etc. without addressing the arguments themselves or without giving adequate attention to the argument.

Groupthink - I agree it is a problem to be guarded against - science can be an example of group think - but I still go to the doctor when I am sick - because I trust the fundamental premises of science. Is there not also a danger of groupthink on the part of deniers? I refer again to the evidence - just one example - the melting of the ice sheets. Dozens of studies - satellite data - data that shows in fact that IPCC report was conservative in its modelling. I am hammered on a science discussion board because I insist on going back to the data - and trusting the science - and the deniers come back with statements like this "No environmental problems stem from climate change." What are you telling me about leaps of logic - statements that cannot be supported by evidence? We are unfortunately going to have to wait until the evidence is undeniable.

Groupthink - I agree it is a problem to be guarded against - science can be an example of group think - but I still go to the doctor when I am sick

Would you go to a doctor who assures you that you have cancer without a full diagnosis?

I am hammered on a science discussion board because I insist on going back to the data

What data? These are observations, nothing more.

Hopefully for the final time- Where is the link to CO2? It is not there. There is only correlation. Correlation does not mean cause. I realize you're not a scientist, djr, so this may not make sense to you, but ask any scientist, correlation is not sufficient to determine cause and effect.

What are you telling me about leaps of logic - statements that cannot be supported by evidence?

djr, again please get a clue. Theres plenty of evidence for my statement. For instance, our very existence and present day biodiversity.

There have been no less than 5 major extinction events all resulting from climate change, the cause of the climate change is up for debate (meteors, etc.) but the Earth and life on earth has endured far more drastic and faster climate changes than we are experiencing now.

i.e. Not an environmental problem, life goes on.

....combined data on current climate and temperature gradients worldwide with climate model projections for the next century to calculate the "temperature velocity" for different regions of the world....

So a set of measurements were fed into a computer model containing projections for the next century.
Right.

I have a model too.

There are more scientists alive today than have ever lived in all history.
That's a lot of mouths to feed.
Consequently, the competition in the scientific world is ferocious. If you want to turn a buck, you'll have to sing to the clima-tune.

This is the scientist income model:

If {
Keywords in funding request contains "Global Warming'| 'CO2'|"caused by man'
THEN {"Wahoo, you get free money'}
ELSE {'Sorry bro, you gotta work for your dough'}
}

This model predicts that we as a tax payer will be paying more and more hard earned money to freeloaders like these.

I really object to using the term scientist by every hobo that jumps on the climate scam train.

... I refer again to the evidence - just one example - the melting of the ice sheets.

Some of those glaciers didn't even exist 2000 years ago. Others, in Antarctica, are growing (not the small sheet in the news.)

...satellite data - data that shows in fact that IPCC report was conservative in its modelling...

The satellite data does not support AGW until after it is massaged by Goddard (Dr. Hansen) and NCAR (Dr. Trenberth). The data from UAH and RSS do not support AGW. The data from a satellite can vary over the age of the satellite making the analysis the domain of experts in those systems (which neither Hansen or Trenberth are.) Failure of sensors is also an issue, as with the DMSP/SSMI sensor failure to map Arctic ice coverage.
http://icecap.us/...rature1/
http://icecap.us/...in_july/

There are cases where local climate can be influenced by man. I do not dispute that. Case in point--Kilimanjaro. The natives cut down the trees of their rain forest, without thinking about long-term consequences.

Now, with the rain forest gone Kilimanjaro now has a shrinking glacier that has little to nothing to do with anthropogenically forced global climate change and much to do with the fact that there is now considerably less precipitation as a result of the loss of the rain forest that originally supplied the moisture to Kilimanjaro. Solution? Not limiting CO2 emissions! True solution? Replant and allow the rain forest to grow again in that local region.

Another example is in every single urban area. Temperatures can be as high as 5° higher in cities due to heat island effect--a local environmental climate phenomenon--than in the surrounding suburban and rural regions.

Man can indeed influence local climate on several levels but it is a stretch to say man's influence is global.

"Where is the link to CO2? It is not there. There is only correlation. Correlation does not mean cause."
Even though not a climate scientist, I understand well that correlation does not equal causation. However - if there is correlation - there is grounds for exploring the connections. As we cannot do double blind experiments on the atmosphere - we must hypothesize - and try to find data to support, or disprove our hypothesis. IPCC - currently considers increases in green house gases to be the most likely cause - good enough for me. I will leave it at that - and a quote from NOAA - "Of the 10 hottest years recorded by NOAA, eight have occurred since 2000, and after this year it will be nine because this year is on track to be the sixth-warmest on record." Good enough for me! We will have to wait a few more decades to see how this pans out. http://www.houmat...ians-say

"Of the 10 hottest years recorded by NOAA, eight have occurred since 2000, and after this year it will be nine because this year is on track to be the sixth-warmest on record."

Is it possible you are relying on information which was altered to "hide the decline"? Isn't it obvious that such massaged data would show what they intended which was increasing temperatures? While actual temperatures have been dropping for the last 10 years. Hence the need to "hide the decline."

There are cases where local climate can be influenced by man. I do not dispute that. Case in point--Kilimanjaro. The natives cut down the trees of their rain forest, without thinking about long-term consequences.

...
Another example is in every single urban area. Temperatures can be as high as 5� higher in cities due to heat island effect--a local environmental climate phenomenon--than in the surrounding suburban and rural regions.

Man can indeed influence local climate on several levels but it is a stretch to say man's influence is global.

These are examples of "land use" change. A number of the AGW skeptics have been proponents of this as a significant portion of the observed warming. The urban heat-island effect is well documented but the rest needs further study.
http://wattsupwit...changes/

Here, I was not discussing warming due to the land use change. I was discussing Kilimanjaro and the lack of precipitation caused by cutting down the rain forests that supplied much of the precipitation needed to keep the Kilimanjaro glacier alive. Ablation and lack of precipitation are the primary causes of it's decline.

I will leave it at that - and a quote from NOAA - "Of the 10 hottest years recorded by NOAA, eight have occurred since 2000, and after this year it will be nine because this year is on track to be the sixth-warmest on record." Good enough for me! We will have to wait a few more decades to see how this pans out.

I am glad that the fellow on the page mentioned that we have a growing El Nino condition. These almost always tend to bump temps up. But, there has been a cooling trend over the last three years. In fairness, however, that fellow is right that it all depends upon where the lines are drawn and where we start.

But, I don't always place stock in the findings of statisticians. There is a saying that retains its validity even today. "There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics." Given that NOAA shares data with CRU, I'd take anything said on these matters with a grain of salt unless the facts are confirmed first.

Of course, 5000-1000 years ago it was warmer.

Is it possible you are relying on information which was altered to "hide the decline"? Isn't it obvious that such massaged data would show what they intended which was increasing temperatures? While actual temperatures have been dropping for the last 10 years. Hence the need to "hide the decline."

Now let's be clear here. The "decline" they were hiding was not temperature. The decline was how closely tree rings correlated with known record. Unfortunately this explanation is no better as it showed their primary proxy for ALL of the pre-modern temperature reconstructions used in the IPCC reports and the majority of AGW research are based on false premise. This does not speak to other proxies or other statistics, only the most heavily used statistics used by the IPCC and other climatology organizations.

It is not just the MXD tree-ring data but also the NHD1 proxy data set in which they hid the decline. Both sets of data in their raw form showed declines during similar periods. When two or more proxies say the same thing, it pretty well is indicative of something happening with the temperatures in a similar way. Alternatively, something else is going on which is not yet understood.

Take a look at the source code in briffa_sep98_e.pro. You can see that both MXD and NHD1 have been smoothed to correct for the decline in both data sets in that fully functional IDL programming code.

In addition, temps have been falling somewhat over the last ten years, and more so during the last three years. Last year was the ninth warmest (pessimistic use of the term) year of the 21st century.

dachpyarvile - I appreciate that you have looked at the actual data and seen the abnormalities. In every walk of life there are competent people and their those that are not. The best thing to do with bad science is to simply remove it from the equation and discard that body of evidence. In addition, as you point out, abnormalities in the those proxies may indicate that the proxies have a real problem measuring actual temperature and should be considered very suspect in drawing conclusions about anything

I have absolutely no problem with that. What I object to is discarding the absolutely huge amount of other data that has no relation whatsoever to these proxies. Its like because the plumber you hired screwed up your toilet, all plumbers are incompetent and can't be trusted.

In the end, generalizations usually fail because they are gross oversimplifications or misguided explanations of reality.

I agree that bad science should be discarded. Therefore, we should discard anything that has used or now uses the "corrected" MXD and NHD1 data. We should also discard anything that has come down from CRU and any organization that has used CRU data. It is time for a total re-do and reassessment.

The proxy data forms a substantial substrate of the data to which you refer. If the foundation is bad the superstructure is unsound.

Now, here is the thing: There is more than just the MXD and NHD1 data that shows a decline. Satellite data seems to show the same thing. Are all of these "bad science" because a number of combined proxies with other data exhibit a decline?

The data that shows a rapid rising of temperature, however, is based upon urban temperature stations that have numerous failings. Do we discard the combined proxy data or the bad data from bad temperature stations? Is there really a problem with the raw MXD, NHD1 and satellite data, or is it a problem with something else?

dachpyarvile - What I object to is discarding the absolutely huge amount of other data that has no relation whatsoever to these proxies. Its like because the plumber you hired screwed up your toilet, all plumbers are incompetent and can't be trusted.

The problem here isn't bad data. It is data which has been deliberately corrupted by a group of unethical scientists. Does this mean all scientists are unethical? No. Does it mean that climate science as a whole should be re-examined and that previously accepted data (and all conclusions drawn from it) should be regarded with suspicion? Yes.

In other words, climate science has a long road to travel before its' reputation is restored.

A number of the databases are problematic as well for they are missing a lot of data and a number also are corrupted. So, a little creative trickery to make up the numbers where lacking was done to part of the data to correct for this, along with hiding the decline.

In addition, I am nowhere saying that all climate scientists are like those in the plumbing analogy above. But, anything coming from CRU should be suspect, as with anything coming from elsewhere that relied on any of their data until everything is redone and rechecked.

But, what to do with the statements of other climate scientists who have gone on record and said the exact opposite of what is said by the IPCC and others of their kind? :)

But, what to do with the statements of other climate scientists who have gone on record and said the exact opposite of what is said by the IPCC and others of their kind? :)

I think their stock just went up. They seem to have maintained their integrity, if for no other reason than that the CRC and IPCC took such efforts to destroy their credibility and careers.

I expect them to be in the forefront restoring credibility to climate science, if they are given the opportunity.

dachpyvarvile, claudius as you seem to commont on any subject that even hints at the usage of the term climate change, why dont you just post in the the sceptic rags or at least keep it on topic, species an whole ecosystem ranges are changing, is what the paper is about, not your egotistical rantings. jeez, the whole climate scientists are out to swindle an con you myth is purile an if your convinced of that, given your astute take on the climate science you could do worse then get employed by these institutions an make loads of money with your perceptive inteligence

species an whole ecosystem ranges are changing, is what the paper is about, not your egotistical rantings.

I think what causes me to make comments about this article is that they are shamelessly relying on the same discredited data sources and projections that the IPCC has used to promote its' ideals.

In fact, I am furious about what the unethical scientists at the CRU have done at the apparent behest of the IPCC. The damage to science is severe, and I happen to like science.

Also, it is apparent that this news is being suppressed in the mainstream media, and the AGW proponents still have the rostrum. Whenever AGW is promoted in the media using what are known to be corrupt data sources, those who love science should speak up in outrage at the arrogance of the IPCC and its running dogs at continuing to promote a discredited idea.

species an whole ecosystem ranges are changing, is what the paper is about, not your egotistical rantings.

And they've been doing so constantly for millenia.

If you were older than your 30's you'd remember the statements of how CFC's were causing the Armadillo to have to migrate south due to the intense global cooling brought on by global dimming.

Last I checked we still have many of the armored, rat-like, road pests in the American southwest.

operator,

I have not posted remarks in all articles dealing with climate change. I have posted in a number of them, yes. I post on topic but I also post in response to others' posts as well.

By the way, I see you have no substantive refutation of my remarks above, or elsewhere, for that matter.

Oh, and writing for skeptic rags and so forth is not my thing. I also am too honest to work for institutions bent on defrauding the populace. I would rather die a pauper than a rich man if it involves corrupting the science or the truth in any way to be a rich man.

On the other hand, Al Gore is a rich man and he stands to benefit substantially from any sort of cap and trade and other economically damaging legislation based upon uncertain science.

economically damaging legislation based upon uncertain science.

I would just like to add that since the revelation of massive fraud at the CRU, in combination with other evidence such as satellite data over the last 30 years, the current best hypothesis is that man is not warming the planet significantly.

That much is, I think, not uncertain.