Will there ever be acceptable balance or compromise in the economics versus environment interest in the Arctic issue? What is your take? Do you think the scientists will ever have a voice, so that they can at least complete their studies?

Crane-Station – these are very good questions. They’re some of the topics my classes covered [...]

An unfortunate consequence of living in a capitalist society is most people’s focus is on economics before things like the environment. To the extent that I have the luxury of being concerned about the environment, I’m not absolutely defending that view. It’s only because of my high standard of living that I have that capability [...]

I think the tendency for people to use ‘catastrophic’-type language is high – I used it for a while but have stopped once I read research results on how the public interprets such language. I laud Hansen for the critical climate work he has done, but I have joined a slowly growing population of researchers/academics [...]

Yes, that’s a good link – thanks for sharing. Whether the release of methane is slow or fast, the climate will obviously be impacted for a long time. The quicker it occurs, the less time ecosystems and our civilizations will have to respond. This isn’t rocket science, but treads closer to ‘catastrophic’ language that I [...]

Counterintuitively, Antarctic ice is actually benefiting from ozone depletion. To date, the CO2 signal is weaker than this. As the ozone layer is replenished through the 21st century, the signal will become clearer. Antarctic mass loss is occurring largely because of warmer water melting the ice from below, which allows for land-based ice to move [...]

Good link – thanks for sharing.

Terrorists are using EM waves to set off earthquakes & volcanoes? The solar system is heating up – now why has no one thought of that before? Check the graph again – solar irradiance had a positive, but very small correlation with Arctic sea ice, which means the signal just isn’t there. Bankers want to [...]

Be careful what you wish for. ;)
I was directed to this the other day:
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2010/01/18/ocean-acidification-scare-pushed-copenhagen

It’s filled with nonsensical analysis, but most skeptical arguments are these days. Keep in mind that a solid 1/3 of Americans will believe the Heartland’s explanation because of shared ideology. It would be laughable if it weren’t so serious.

Yes, scientific results have been irrefutable (scientifically speaking) for many years and will continue to grow more so with time. Nor do I think this result, or any other combination of results, will change corporate behavior. If enough people understand the changes occurring around them as well as the larger context including uncertainty of projections, [...]

I agree wholeheartedly that the decisions to stretch weather and space agency budgets further and further has led to the unfortunate but predicted situation you allude to: the inability to continue to monitor our planet with the type of fidelity required for developing civilizations. At least in the US, I don’t see this trend changing [...]

Thanks!

For what purpose? If you’re asking for them, you’ve likely already seen them. So what would reproducing them here accomplish? If a chart includes 1879 data, is that going to change how you view the charts above? If a charts includes data back 2,000 years, does that change what the charts above show? No, it [...]

Interesting point – the plant hardiness zones are shifting. The USDA released a new map this week and there are noticeable differences between this new one and the last one (made in 1990). Whether any of us or all of us collectively “believe” in global warming or not is irrelevant. Plant and animal characteristics are [...]

It’s more likely that the North Atlantic Oscillation – in combination with this year’s La Nina – explains Alaska’s cold, wet winter so far. The NAO index set or were near record lows the past 2 winters, which was why the western 2/3 of the continental U.S. was warm and dry and the east coast [...]

Let the quoted speak for themselves: There are 2 paragraphs in between “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly…” and “As a scientist I remain skeptical…” in Dr. Simpson’s “quote” you provide above (that’s what the ellipses are for, BTW). Due to the length of [...]

papau & warp9-

Thanks for commenting. I’m glad my explanations come across as clear – that’s good feedback.

Cheers, WD.

1) The energy content anomalies and surface temperature anomalies show 42, 55, and 105 years’ data – solid “climate” timescales all. The model simulation results I’ve shown here can’t do that since their projections started in 1990. At best, 20 years of validation can currently take place. As discussed, those projections have done a pretty [...]