"BEST" temperature record study surprises skeptics
Last month, a team of scientists from Berkeley called the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) group released results from research they did on the Earth surface temperature record. Though there have been numerous studies and time series created on surface temperature, they wanted to take an independent look at the data and create a new temperature record. What they found was surprising to some in the "skeptic" community, though not surprising to most climate scientists.
Dr. Richard Muller is the founder and scientific director of the BEST group, which is made up of physicists, statisticians, and climatologists. Though Dr. Muller has been described as a climate change "skeptic" and "denialist," he has an impressive and extensive curriculum vitae in physics, including being a consultant for the U.S. Department of Defense, and a MacArther Foundation Fellow, and the recipient of the National Science Foundation Alan T. Altman Award. His skepticism is evidenced most frequently in the press by his funding from the Koch brothers, who have made billions of dollars in the oil industry. The BEST project also accepted funding from Koch, among many other organizations, though the funders had no influence over methodology or results, which is almost always the case in peer reviewed science. The BEST group also includes Dr. Judith Curry, the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, who has recently been vocal about the need for a more transparent scientific process, and more eyes on the data, especially when it comes to research on man-made global warming and the temperature record.
The BEST team was open with their hypothesis: they expected to find that, when using temperature stations that other organizations failed to include, the warming trend wouldn't be present, or at least not as dramatic. Their objectives are listed on their website (which also includes access to data and submitted papers), which include:
-- Merging land surface data into a raw dataset that's in a common format and easy to use
-- Developing new and potentially better ways of processing, average, and merging the data
-- Creating a new global temperature record
-- To provide not only the raw data and the resulting record, but also the code and tools used to get there, making the process as transparent as possible
Figure 1. Locations of the the 39,028 temperature stations in the Berkeley Earth data set (blue). Stations classified as rural are plotted on top in black.
The BEST project collaborators combined data from 15 sources that, wherever possible, did not include the tried and true data that the "big three" (NASA, NOAA, or HadCRU) used in their analyses, mainly the GHCN Monthly dataset, which is widely used because of its requirements that the each station in the data set have plenty of observations, no gaps, and no erroneous data. However, the BEST project was born to create a new global surface temperature record, and to "see what you get" if you use observations that other institutions have weeded out. BEST looked at data from 39,028 different temperature measurement stations from around the globe (Figure 1), and developed an averaging process to merge the stations into one record, which you see below in comparison to previous records that have been constructed.
Figure 2. Temperature time series from the big three: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Science (NASA GISS, blue), NOAA (green), and the Hadley Centre and Climate Research Unit of East Anglia (HadCRU, red) along with the results from the BEST project (black).
The result was a new land surface temperature series to be added to the well-cited records of NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU, in addition to some truly independent, amateur compilations. The new temperature record agrees with the records from "the big three," and agrees with them on a warming of 1°C since 1950. BEST also addressed concerns raised by the skeptic community about station bias and urban heat island effect. They conclude that the urban heat island effect does not contribute significantly to the land temperature rise, given that urban area is only 1% of the land area in the record. Also, they looked at the stations that Anthony Watts has reported as "poor" quality, and have found that they also showed the same warming as the stations that were reported as "OK." This helps to show that temperature stations were not "cherry picked" in previous studies for warming trends, but for honest station quality.
The addition of another (eventually) peer-reviewed temperature series is good, and more eyes looking at the data is good, but the result is not surprising. However, it might have changed the minds of some skeptics who have been wanting to see an analysis from scientists that they find trustworthy. I think Dr. Muller sums their results up nicely in his Wall Street Journal opinion article:
When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that.
The BEST project has four papers out for review in various journals. Having released the results to the public eye before undergoing the scrutiny of peer review, they've also made some updates to the analysis since these papers were submitted, thanks to a peer review process of its own: the internet.
Links and references:
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature
BEST FAQ
BEST Press Release
Angela
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 — Blog Index
I am a man. Should you wish to PC, then I am a superman! LOL
Thanks!
Ok, this is way off topic, but you asked for it.........
what color is your leotard and cape? :)
My apology. I suffered a moment of weakness.
.....weakness............ function of being human, or Kryptonite? :)
now to get back on topic..........
Link
Hydraulic Fracturing
Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” is a proven and well-regulated technology. First used in the 1940s, hydraulic fracturing has unlocked massive new supplies of oil and clean-burning natural gas from dense deposits of shale — — supplies that increase our country’s energy security and improve our ability to generate electricity, heat homes and power vehicles for generations to come.
I see France banned fracking ...........I wonder if they are thinking about the generations to come?
Ok, I am still being silly, but it appears it is going to be that kind of day...... maybe later I can "spin" my day differently.
Most definitely my moment of weakness was a function of being human. .... sigh
Fracking does show promise for supplying us with a further energy source. The primary problem is that it keeps us on a fossil fuel energy source for a longer period of time. "For generations to come" can be very misleading when you consider the impact that a continued use of fossil fuels will bring. How much will fracking impact our water tables? ( we are, after all, nothing without our water ) Is fracking at least partially responsible for the increased earthquake activity we are seeing in areas that not so prone to this much activity? Now I will play the part of the skeptic and ask what science is available to answer these questions and how reliable is the collected data? Considering the possible ramifications, we need to know these answers to some reasoned degree of certainty.
I believe that our best energy source will come from nuclear fusion. We will ever obtain this? As yet, unknown.
We need to eliminate political party from the equation.
The study did give some clues...
It did show that republicans had extreme skepticism...
Now in another study...
If I recall, the conclusions were that 97% of the climate scientists polled thought there was a notable human contribution to global warming. I don't remember it saying how many were democrats, independents, republicans and so on. The 97% figure comes from those who responded.
I think Jeff Masters references it here:
Link
Another study I see says only 6% of US scientists are republican. The rest were 55% democrat, 32% independent and the others were undecided.
The link is here for that one:
Link
I get these studies mixed up so forgive me if I have.
A good start would be to eliminate party idealogy in the classrooms first.
Not if we put the space junk there!
What I mean is, if the human race put space junk in orbit, then that would alter the natural order of things, no?
If at all, the human has contributed to less light getting into the atmosphere because of reflection, right?
Correct but the amount is infinitesimal unlike GHGs.
The amount of space junk or the amount of light reflected is infinitesimal compared to GHGs?
And what is the ideal amount of GHGs in the atmosphere that would make scientists happy and/or unworrisome?
Less than 225ppm Co2 for sure.Tunnels do that!
I bring this up as it goes hand in hand with a report just published in the journal Health Affairs, Six Climate Change–Related Events In The United States Accounted For About $14 Billion In Lost Lives And Health Costs. From the abstract:
The future health costs associated with predicted climate change–related events such as hurricanes, heat waves, and floods are projected to be enormous. This article estimates the health costs associated with six climate change–related events that struck the United States between 2000 and 2009. The six case studies came from categories of climate change–related events projected to worsen with continued global warming—ozone pollution, heat waves, hurricanes, infectious disease outbreaks, river flooding, and wildfires. We estimate that the health costs exceeded $14 billion, with 95 percent due to the value of lives lost prematurely. Actual health care costs were an estimated $740 million. This reflects more than 760,000 encounters with the health care system. Our analysis provides scientists and policy makers with a methodology to use in estimating future health costs related to climate change and highlights the growing need for public health preparedness.
So to summarize: there are very high--"enormous"--costs associated with climate-change related disasters that are often overlooked by those tallying up the costs of doing something about GW vs. not doing something. Everyone looks at property and infrastructure damage, and rightly so. But the human cost in health care and lives cut short should not be ignored.
Looks like it follows the warming trend.
Let me guess, hurricane Katrina, add another major hurricane with the highest mortality rate, probably a few blizzards, a few tornado swarms...there, now add up the health costs.
Disasters are terrible. Unavoidable obstacles on the Course of Life.
You can't argue with that graph though. It coincides with the rise in population.
A) You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but a bunch of degreed scientists disagree with you;
B) The majority of the costs weren't from health care, but from the value of lives prematurely cut short.
So are you of the opinion that the population of the U.S. has risen 400% in just 30 years? Statistics disagree: in 1980, the U.S. was home to 227 million people. In 2010, that had risen to 308 million, an increase of less than 36%.
No, as I said earlier, the upward trend in extreme weather events is real; only a slight fraction of the increase is due to better reporting or a growing population.
No, we don't. But to ignore the growing connections between warmer temperatures and increasingly extreme weather events is to be, well, ignorant.
In spots, perhaps, but not in the US, and not globally.
There's always rapid ice growth in the Arctic in late fall; there's no sun. And it's fast this year as there's so much more open water.
Nah, I was not speaking litterally.
Do you disagree that energy consumption rises with population increase?
The value of lives cut short?
So I'm guessing when an F4 tornado rips through a golf course community instead of a trailer park, we should be alarmed more of the impacts of planetary warming.
If this is what degreed scientists are getting paid to report, I'd suggest some serious budget cuts.
Link
Yup, second least ice in the history of the universe and soon to be the record least, but you're right.
Steven Milloy = Junk (“would you like some oil on your tobacco?”) Science. ;-)
"WIDESPREAD MAJOR COASTAL FLOODING AND SEVERE BEACH
EROSION IS EXPECTED IN...THE VILLAGES OF NOME AND KIVALINA WHERE
MAJOR DAMAGE FROM COASTAL FLOODING AND STRONG WINDS
IS EXPECTED."
The (not so) funny thing is, the village of Kivalina filed suit (later dismissed, now on appeal) against several Big Energy companies and a handful of utilities three years ago for changing the environment, a process attorneys claimed was causing sea ice to disappear, thus leaving their village prone to destructive wave erosion.
The lack of all but floe ice in the Bering Sea will doubtless maximize the environmental impact of this evening's storm; there may be oil spilled from ships being rammed ashore, from oil pipelines being broken, and by coastal oil facilities being hit by waves and large chunks of ice.
Yet another possible climate-related disaster in the making. Imagine that.
Actually you're closer to the truth than most here will admit.
Health care has tripled in costs since 1990 and by a factor of 8 since 1980. In addition, as usual, there is no adjustment for inflation in comparison to earlier years.
And do we think Health care workers have tracked weather events since 1950 or has any data to support this??? I doubt that.
My daughter is a Health Care executive. She thinks this graph came from somewhere other than the Health Care Industry.
There were "NO" Atmospheric Scientists associated with the article. But that is typical with climate change friendly posturing.
To wit:
***Author Affiliations
1Kim Knowlton (kknowlton@nrdc.org) is a senior scientist in the Health and Environment Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council in New York City.
2Miriam Rotkin-Ellman is a staff scientist in the Health and Environment Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council in San Francisco, California.
3Linda Geballe is a student at Boalt Law School, at the University of California, Berkeley.
4Wendy Max is a professor of health economics and codirector of the Institute for Health and Aging at the University of California, San Francisco.
5Gina M. Solomon is an associate clinical professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco.*****
What the graph "did" tend to prove was that as the weather events increase earthquakes are remarkably decreased. I'm sure California would welcome the reality that if accelerated climate change holds true, in 20 years there will be no more earthquakes.
I am not sure how Munich RE classifies extreme weather events but it is not surprising since every week the USA adds a town of approx. 52,000 ppl and the infrastructure needed and also when the expensive buildings and machinery destroyed need to be disposed of than rebuilt which is much more expensive than in 1980 even taking inflation into account. Also the average size of a dwelling has increased greatly and complexity not to mention commercial and industrial buildings
Also while some fishing vessel may or may not be sunk in the Bering Strait. There are no pipelines or oil facilities anywhere near where the Alaska storm will be. The winds in Barrow will be mainly offshore. I think I will believe Levi32 who lives there and has already said they have experienced worse. Nice try at fear mongering though but totally uncalled for. As for the Alaskan town suing sounds like just another ambulance chaser or class action scumbag.
FWIW open water does not actually make ice faster. There are many things that come into play to make ice. Temperature being the most important.
You can believe me I live in a place where winter lasts for months and the ice can get over 5 feet thick. I have seen more Blizzards, winter storms and shear winter death weather than probably anyone on this blog.
Temps of greater than -50 and windchill of greater than -70 (new formula or -100 old formula) where your skin will began to freeze in seconds and death comes quickly. Please don't lecture those of us who experience these conditions on how winter works, some of us actually know the truth.
"Later dismissed" means; "You don't have a legitimate claim, go away."
"Now on appeal" means; "I'm a lawyer, I need work."
To sue a few companies for what is being showcased in every climate change circle as a global end result of a world wide cause is just plain stupid and only an ambulance chaser would worry a higher court with this nonsense.
Silly how some here grasp at any straw to over-defend what they claim to be sound science.
Thou doest protest too much.
It takes someone in deep denial to claim that overall temps in the USA are decreasing after one of the hottest summers ever, and in a year in which record highs have outnumbered record lows by nearly three-to-one.
It takes someone in deep denial to claim that there are no oil facilities or vulnerable ships on the western coast of Alaska.
It takes someone in deep denial to claim that open water in the Arctic won't freeze faster than water that's already frozen.
It takes someone in deep denial to claim that the 400% increase in the number of extreme weather events in the US over the last 30-odd years is due only to a 35% increase in population.
It takes someone in deep denial to claim that living in Minnesota autmomatically confers expertise on severe weather in the Bering Sea.
It takes someone in deep denial to claim that it's normally warm above the Arctic Circle in the second week of November, when the sun is low in the sky and just six weeks from the winter solstice.
It takes someone in deep denial to claim that a Big Oil-friendly judge's dismissal of a pollution-related lawsuit means that the suit has no merit.
It takes someone in deep denial to claim that the 40 trillion liters of anthropogenic CO2 we humans pump into the atmosphere each day simply vanishes without a trace.
It takes someone in deep denial to claim that the planet isn't warming rapidly.
Do you have any evidence that the temp is the usa is not decreasing? No. Texas and Oklahoma and one year are not the whole USA
How could open water freeze faster than ice that is already there? That comment is laughable. Ever driven a truck on ice? Ever seen how ice forms and where and why or why not?
You use percentages which are easy to misrepresent. I use actual facts about population, property and infrastructure. Example you have 20 dollars and make 400% increase, I have 60 dollars and make 35% increase. Question who has more money over the same given time? ME even though you made 400% and I made only 35% hmmm?
I said there may be fishing boats out there but there are no oil facilities. Do Have proof of these oil facilities and pipelines? No. Unless your oil facility is a diesel tank. LOL
I don't claim to be an expert on the Bering Sea, but I guarantee I know more about winter weather than some goof in Florida. True. I also still believe Levi32 as he is smarter about weather than you and I put together.
I never said it was warm I just said it is extremely cold (well below normal) for this time of year in Nunavut. You said the sun does not shine in the arctic I proved it does still shine. True. BTW the sun set in Alert Nunavut October 16th which is at 82.5 degrees north but it is never gone from the arctic even on December 21 it is up for over 2 hours on the Arctic Circle. We have been making ice since what September 10th?
Maybe the case actually has no merit. Do you know this judge is an oil shill as you like to say? No
The co2 thing I never said anything about that but since you bring it up all the climate models have been wrong for the last decade. It is not just co2 that has driven the warming.
Global temp not rising for over a decade, ocean surface temp not rising. Do have evidence that these temps have risen? No
I can see why your frustrated though as no one in the general public really cares about AGWT anymore.
As always thanks for playing
To further clarify the argument about how breathing "counts" I need to refute the flawed logic of this (and a few other statements) regarding the closed nature of the carbon cycle. There are two sides to the carbon cycle of which we are all discussing only half. That is, the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. We aren't discussing the amount of carbon in the ground that is sequestered from the air because it doesn't contribute to GW. The point is that at any given moment, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a balancing act of emission (breathing, burning fuels, etc.) and absorption (photosynthesis). Since it's a cycle, if one part speeds up while the other slows down the overall CO2 in the atmosphere will increase dramatically.
Let's use an Indoor Air Quality analogy. If you put two people in a small greenhouse with 10 plants and measure the CO2 levels during the day it will probably resemble our atmosphere. But put in 10 people and only two plants and the CO2 levels will skyrocket. This is why outside air has to be pumped into most office buildings to prevent CO2 (and other gases) from building up inside.
Since our atmosphere is also a closed system (just much larger) the ratio between human population and square miles of permanent vegetation will have a direct impact on the amount of CO2. Over the last 100 years the deforestation of our planet is well documented. Depending on whose numbers you use, some 70% of these forests have been removed to make room for farms and human habitat. Old growth forests are more than just habitat for animals, they are also a huge CO2 absorbing-oxygen producing biomachine. As we removed the forests and put up our farms and subdivisions we changed the ratio of trees (or plants in general) to humans. As the population grows, this ratio shifts further into the red, meaning a higher emission rate and a lower absorption rate.
I'm not making this point needlessly. The CO2 exhaled by 5B humans simply adds into the total CO2 that needs to be absorbed by an ever shrinking plant base. Crops grown for food do not have the same CO2 absorbing capabilities as an old growth forest.
Here is the bottom line: Overpopulation drives deforestation, industrialization and increased power generation. The more people you have on the planet, the more room you need (deforestation), the more food you need (industrialized agriculture), and the more power you need (fossil fuel generation). Only a plan that addresses population first has any chance of making an impact.
Given the world's reluctance to even discuss population control, I highly doubt MAN will do anything substantive to limit our total footprint on this planet. Mother Nature will most likely step in at some point and do it for us.
Last time I checked, neither weather nor climate carries a passport. Neither of these growth figures are relevant to a global problem. Agreed?
Fusion? Really? Someone please tell me why we shouldn't shift our entire power generation over to nuclear fission as fast as possible. Science based or at least logic based arguments only please.
.."and behind Door # 1 we see"..............
Navy Official Discusses Climate Change Investment Strategy
By Bob Freeman
Office of the Oceanographer of the Navy
By Bob Freeman
Office of the Oceanographer of the Navy
WASHINGTON, June 21, 2010 – A number of recent strategic Defense Department documents have recognized that the changing climate may affect national security and military operations later in the century.
This is particularly true for the globally deployed U.S. Navy, and investments to address climate challenges may need to be made, the service’s oceanographer said in a June 18 “DoD Live” bloggers roundtable.
“We're going to have to fold these challenges into a tight fiscal budget,” acknowledged Navy Rear Adm. David W. Titley, who also serves as director of the Navy's Task Force Climate Change. He explained that it is important not only to know what investments are right to meet future requirements, but also to know when to make them.
“We want to basically pace the threat,” Titley said. “We don't want to get into a tail chase over climate change, but at the same time, … we do not want to spend ahead of need, spending for things that may not be required for years or decades later.”
Titley explained that to define the scope of needed investments the Navy will conduct capabilities-based assessments, which he described as foundational studies to determine the requirements for such things as force structure, infrastructure, command and control and communications. “We're doing one of these capabilities-based assessments for climate change in general, and another one focused specifically on the Arctic,” he said.
Titley said the assessments were timed to coincide with the Navy's program objective memorandum for fiscal 2014. POMs are annual events in which critical decisions on the budget and investment spending are made. Titley said he believes the 2014 budget is where the first climate-change investments may potentially be made.
“One of the investments we're really going to have to think about in the next several decades is the impact of sea level rise on the Navy's infrastructure,” Titley said. “That includes our ports and piers in the continental United States, but we also need to think about bases we use in conjunction with our partners and allies overseas.”
As an example, Titley mentioned Diego Garcia, a small, low-lying island in the Indian Ocean that hosts a strategic airfield.
“The observations have shown us that through the 20th century, sea level rose by an average of two millimeters per year,” Titley said. “So that means over the course of the century, we had about 20 centimeters, or roughly eight inches, of sea level rise. The sea level rise we've seen in the first 10 years of the new century is already 50 percent greater than the average sea level rise in the 20th century.”
Titley explained that as the oceans get warmer, they expand and take up more space, causing the sea level to rise. In addition, the land-based ice that already is melting -- including mountain glaciers, the Greenland ice field, and even the western Antarctic ice sheet -- will add volume to the ocean. He acknowledged considerable uncertainty over the time line and extent of sea level rise, but he noted that leading climate scientists believe sea levels could rise as much as six feet by the end of the century.
“How probable is this?” Titley asked. “I'm not really sure right now, but I am sure there are significant consequences. We need to make sure, as time goes by, that we understand it, we have a plan, and we know what it will cost us to execute that plan.
“That's really one of the foundational elements the task force is going to pursue,” he added.
In response to a question on specific infrastructure upgrades, Titley noted that there is no single answer, and said scientists and engineers will need to work together with local communities, taking into account the specifics of every critical location, to determine what types of solutions will be needed.
“That is what our capabilities-based assessments will be tasked to figure out,” he said.
When asked whether naval bases were prepared for stronger and more intense hurricanes, Titley said that the impact a warming climate may have on tropical storm development is controversial and subject to much research. He explained that ocean warming is only one component of hurricane formation, and that other factors such as upper level wind shear may not support increased frequency and intensity.
“What I can tell you,” he said, “is that our regional commanders make sure their bases are prepared for severe hurricanes every year.”
Titley said it’s essential to improve predictive capabilities on a variety of time lines to provide reliable forecasts to decision makers. These predictions need to include weather and ocean forecasts in the near term, as well as climatological forecasts extending decades out, he added.
“In the past, many federal agencies tended to produce their own predictive models,” Titley said. He noted that he is engaging the leadership of other agencies to create partnerships that will ensure that the best minds in the nation are working collectively on solutions. These joint climate models could serve both military and civilian purposes, he said, recognizing that details regarding classification and security would need to be worked out.
“I believe that the time is right, and the leadership in many agencies is right, to work this at a national level,” he said, “to make sure the taxpayer money we put into these predictions give the absolute best return on our collective investment. We owe this to the American people.”
Titley said international partnerships also are important to dealing effectively with potential climate-change challenges, particularly in the Arctic. He mentioned that the Canadian navy had invited the United States to participate this year in its annual Operation Nanook polar exercise. U.S. participants will include a destroyer, a maritime patrol aircraft, and specialized ice diving units.
“This is a tremendous opportunity for several hundred of our sailors and officers to experience operating ships and aircraft well north of the Arctic Circle,” Titley said.
There is also a proposal to share lessons learned with the Danish navy, which has significant experience operating in the Arctic waters around its territory Greenland. In addition, Titley said, the Naval Research Laboratory is working with the Russian navy in the Kara Sea this summer, and there are current discussions with the International Hydrographic Organization to determine how to best work with regional partners in cooperative ocean-surveying operations.
“This is not meant to be all inclusive,” Titley said, “but it is an indication of progress in just the last couple of months towards opportunities to work with our international partners.”
Titley noted some other examples of progress in considering the strategic impact of climate change.
“Recently, the chief of naval operations signed out the Navy's Arctic strategic objectives,” he said, “and this gives everybody in the Navy a common frame of reference to understand what we are trying to achieve.”
He added that the Navy wants to ensure a “safe, stable, and secure Arctic.”
Titley said the main goal of Task Force Climate Change is to ensure the Navy is not taken by strategic surprise, and he expressed satisfaction that climate change is being considered in strategic war games and limited objective experiments. He described these as “thinking exercises” that examine various strategic scenarios to determine how to handle them, to evaluate whether the assets are available to handle them, and to identify shortfalls.
“Nobody knows what the future will entail,” Titley said, “but if you run a range of scenarios, and you see that there are common capabilities and capacities that you would need to answer those scenarios, then you can really inform a future budget debate.”
Biographies:
Navy Rear Adm. David W. Titley
Related Sites:
"DoD Live" Bloggers Roundtable
.."Sorry" no parting gift's due to budget restraint's...
As of ~1:30 AM local time, it was 20F in Iqaluit, the capital of Nunavut. That's about 4F above the average November *high*. Toasty!
But Nunavut's a big place, so perhaps it's cold somewhere else there.
Oh, Alert was mentioned. The station's off-line just now, but tomorrow is predicted to have a high of -13F, a big, big 6F less than the November average. The predicted wind chill does look nasty, though, and right at this moment they have 99% humidity, which sounds like one of those unpleasant Arctic fogs. But "well below normal"? The data would seem not to support that.
But again, it's a big place, so there must be somewhere to fill the bill, right?
While I'm at it, a word about the current rate of Arctic sea ice recovery:
The ice is declining in all seasons, but much more in summer than in winter. As that trend continues, the autumn recovery rate has to get steeper.
Link
Link
Link
Took about thirty seconds to google and cut and paste links. I haven't read the pages for more than about 5 seconds each so they could be bunk for all I know. The point is that you didn't even bother to try to find out, you just assumed your opinion on this issue affected billions of people was correct. I reall y wish denialists would try to approach an issue neutrally, weigh the evidence and then form an opinion. Doing those things out of order leads to comments like yours.
That was actually well thought out and written. I do have a question about your analogy, the house and ten humans. I suspect, but haven't run any calculations, that the appropriate analogy might be a domed stadium and 10 people. If that were the case, perhaps it takes 100B people or a Trillion people to really make a difference.
I think you would have to figure out the total CO2 in the atmosphere, the amount that each person exhales daily...etc. Maybe you should do that to really convince us.
Last time I checked, I was responding to several comments about the Munich RE graph in #164 titled "Natural Disasters in the United States, 1980-2010". Therefore, the United States population growth figures I used are entirely relevant. Agreed?
Try to keep up. ;-)
Viewing: 151 - 201
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 — Blog Index