Lake Chad now more like Pond Chad

Posted on

"Lake Chad now more like Pond Chad"

Satellite images show Lake Chad one-tenth the size it was in 1972, not even 40 years ago. Lake Chad used to be the world’s sixth-largest lake, but its resources have been diverted for human use or affected by rainfall such that its been almost entirely depleted in a very short amount of time.

In the IPCC’s 2007 report on impacts, vulnerability and adaptation in Africa, there is no specific mention of Lake Chad. But staring at these satellite images one can’t help but wonder how global warming, which is expected to cause drastic changes to the hydrological cycle (drought, rainfall, water levels, etc.), especially in Africa, will accelerate or contribute to the already scarce resources that this map demonstrates is quite the stark reality.

« »

77 Responses to Lake Chad now more like Pond Chad

  1. David B. Benson says:

    Also, the levels of the great lakes of East Africa are all falling.

    Not to mention those in North America.

  2. Mauri Pelto says:

    David The level of what major lake in the US is now falling? The green on the images is the vegetation, which still fills the lake basin, indicating at least seasonal soil moisture is still good in the basin. The black intermixed with the green is wetlands. This is a mammoth change that is self reinforcing. JAXA has some nice images of this. http://www.eorc.jaxa.jp/en/imgdata/topics/2005/tp050117.html

  3. Brute says:

    The shrinking of Lake Chad cannot be blamed on anthropogenic CO2
    Posted on November 18, 2007 by tommoriarty
    Return to Criticisms of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”

    Gore shows a series of four images of Lake Chad on page 116 of his book. The pictures show the lake shrinking from about 25,000 square kilometers in 1963 to about 1,500 square kilometers in 2001. Very dramatic indeed, this drought was abrupt and catastrophic for the people in this region south of the Sahara desert. Gore implies the following sequence of events: Anthropogenic CO2 causes Lake Chad to dry up, then the stresses caused by this depleted resource cause, or exacerbate, regional violence, famine and genocide.
    Gore is wrong for two reasons
    1. Lake Chad was shrinking long before anthropogenic increases of CO2. It is known that Lake Chad was vastly bigger several thousand years ago than it was in 1963, when Al Gore starts his tale about the lake’s demise. Paleological evidence makes it clear that abrupt changes have been common and the lake has shrunk to its current size or smaller multiple times in the last thousand years.
    2. The current low level of Lake Chad is due, at least in part, to greater demands on the water of the in-flowing rivers. The population of the region has more than doubled since the most recent drought began and a large fraction of the water that would normally flow into the lake is being dammed and diverted for irrigation long before it reaches the lake.
    Lake Chad was already shrinking

    While he is almost certainly right about water shortages aggravating social problems, he is certainly wrong about anthropogenic CO2 being the cause. His aim goes wildly off the mark when he makes an important, but wrong, point on the page 117 where he says “When it was full, Lake Chad was the sixth largest lake in the world…” This gives the impression that prior to 1963, “when it was full,” the Eden that was Lake Chad had existed in a 25,000 square kilometer steady state perpetually from the deep past.
    The truth is that Lake Chad has undergone extraordinary changes in the relatively recent past. The Lake Chad of 1963 was just a tiny remnant of what is known to paleontologists as “Lake Megachad.” Just a relatively short six to seven thousand years ago, when Badarian culture was populating upper Egypt and the Yangshao and Longshan cultures of prehistoric China were cultivating grains, domesticating animals and making villages, Lake Megachad was the biggest lake in the world! It was 400,000 square kilometers – five times bigger than Lake Superior is today! 7000 years ago its surface area was 16 times bigger than it was in 1963, and its volume was dozens of times greater. In the Journal The Holocene, Drake and Bristow (2006) point out that Lake Megachad may have been as large as 800,000 square kilometers further back in time.
    According to Section 3.1 of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) report, Africa’s Lakes – Atlas of Our Changing Environment, Lake Chad “levels regressed until, between 5,000 and 2,500 years ago, the lake assumed its current level with periodic oscillations. By 1908 the lake levels were so low that the lake resembled a vast swamp with small northern and southern pools. During the 1950s, levels again increased, joining the southern and northern pools, so by 1963 the lake covered 22,902 km2 (8,842 square miles).” Note that 1963 is the year the Gore conveniently starts his tale about Lake Chad. Somehow he forgets to tell his readers and viewers that 1963 Lake Chad was at its highest level for the entire 20th century. (See figure 1.) In fact, the lake size increased dramatically during the 50 years previous to 1963. Gore’s narrative would not be quite so compelling if he had started it in 1908, because by 2001 the lake level was almost the same as it was back in 1908.
    Butzer (1983) did a comprehensive paleo-environmental review of Lake Chad and the entire Sahel to put the recent drought into historical perspective. He took into account stream deposits, fossil sands, lake beds, abandoned shorelines, paleosols, fossil pollen and lake microorganisms. He says the primary record has been “well fixed in temporal terms by an unusually large number of radiocarbon dates.” The paper gives numerous examples of rapid rises and falls for Lake Chad over the last 20,000 years. Comparison of the Lake Chad data to data from the rest of the Sahel “shows that the history of Lake Chad is fully representative of hydrological changes across the Sahel.” He concludes with “The lake records discussed here are among the most detailed available for the Late Quaternary of Africa.” He points out that droughts like the most recent one “are verified on at least 6 occasions since 1400 AD, and may have a recurrence frequency of three times per century.” This drought, he says, “falls well within the range of short and medium variability directly documented for the last few centuries and indirectly shown for the last 12 millenia.”

    Figure 1. 130 year history of Lake Chad elevation. Note that the 20th century maximum occurred in 1963. The rapid elevation drop at the end of the 19th century occur ed before significant increased in anthropogenic CO2. The most recent elevation data has the lake level almost as high as it was 100 years previous. Double click the image to see a larger version.
    And there’s more. There were other megalakes that existed in the Sahara. Lake Megafezzan was north of Lake Megachad in present day Libya, the Chotts Megalake was in present day northern Algeria and the Ahnot-Moyer Megalake in central Algeria. Figure 2 shows a map of North Africa with the now missing megalakes. The inset of the North American Great Lakes (from Google Earth) is at the same scale and is included for comparison purposes. These lakes did not dry up millions of years ago. Chotts Megalake still existed as a of fresh water body during in the holocene just thousands of years ago, when human beings had already spread over the entire globe. It clearly was not anthropogenic CO2 that caused the mega-lakes to dry up or Lake Chad to shrink and oscillate so widely in the previous several millenia. How can “An Inconvenient Truth” make the claim that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for Lake Chad’s recent shrinking and oscillations when this is a continuation of a long existing pattern.

    Figure 2. The Megalakes of the Sahara region. These gigantic lakes have disappeared in recent millenia. Lake Chad is the only remaining trace of water from these giants. The inset shows the North American Great Lakes at the same scale (from Google Earth) for comparison purposes. The megalake size and shape data is from the Megalakes Project. Double click on the image to see a larger version.

    Figure 3. The site of Lake Megafezzan as it appears today. All that remains is sand. (Image from Google Earth)
    Larger and larger fractions of the in-flowing water is being diverted before it reaches the lake.
    A major contributing factor to Lake Chad’s reduced size in the 21st century is the human manipulation of the water system through damming and irrigation. Multiple dams and irrigation systems have been built upstream on the rivers that feed the lake. The Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA) report by the University of Kalamar on behalf of the United Nations Environmental Programme states that
    “The GIWA Assessment considered anthropogenic stream flow modification as having a severe impact on freshwater availability. Although the Lake has already dried out several times in the past and therefore recent shrinkage is not a new phenomenon, the trend has been severely exacerbated by human stream flow modification….In areas of the Lake Chad Basin, despite the relative abundance of water at times, the flow of rivers has been constantly diminishing (Nami 2002) partly due to decreasing rainfall in the hydrologically active upstream basins but also as a consequence of the increased abstraction for human consumption. This abstraction has dramatically modified stream flow through the construction of dams upstream of the catchment, that have not taken sufficient account of the people and ecosystems downstream of the development.”
    A profound example of the impact of human diversion of water from Lake Chad is illustrated in the (UNEP) report mentioned above, where it is pointed out that “Since the 1960’s human demands for water near Lake Chad have grown rapidly. Between 1960 and 1990, the number of people living in the lake’s catchment area has doubled from 13 million to 26 million.” This growing need for water has resulted in huge irrigation projects and dams along the rivers that feed Lake Chad. Of the Komadougou-Yube river system the report states “The upper basin used to contribute approximately 7 km3/yr to Lake Chad. Today, the bulk of this water is impounded in reservoirs within Kano province in northern Nigeria, and the system provides just 0.45 km3/yr.” By my calculations that is enough impounded water each year to double the current volume of the Lake.
    The greatest inflow to Lake Chad comes from the south via the Chari-Logone River. However, since the 1970s the Chari-Logone stream flow has been drastically modified. The construction of the 30 kilometer wide Maga Dam for the creation of Maga Lake, and 80 kilometers of dykes along the Lagone downstream from the dam have had a profound impact in Lake Chad. This construction was part of the well intentioned SEMRY irrigation project to open up more agricultural land (mostly rice) and fish farming. According to GIWA, “This diversion of water from the Chari River for agricultural purposes has contributed to the decreasing stream flows and the discharges into, and extent of, the Lake Chad….According to expert opinion the most significant GIWA assessed immediate cause [for low stream flow into Lake Chad] is the increased diversion of rivers and the associated unsustainable use of water resources.”

  4. Joe says:

    BBC News 2006:

    One of the world’s great lakes is disappearing. Lake Chad – shared by Nigeria, Chad, Cameroon, and Niger – has receded to less than 20% of its former volume. Global warming is being blamed, as well as water extraction….

    There is no single cause for the disappearance of Lake Chad.

    Global warming is one factor blamed and local people say rainfall has been steadily reducing by about five to 10mm a year….

    “Desertification is moving southwards,” said William Bata Ndahi, director of the Lake Chad Research Institute.

    “The water is moving further and further away. We believe desertification has contributed most to the demise of Lake Chad.”

    [NOTE: Global warming = desertification, as I've blogged many times.]

  5. Brute says:

    Joe,

    Was The Sahara Desert always a desert? In other words, how long has The Sahara Desert been expanding?

  6. David B. Benson says:

    Mauri Pelto — All the great lakes, AFAIK. Pat Neuman blaims this of the relative lack of the lakes freezing over; the evporated winter moisture then falls outside the lakes’s caputre basin.

    Brute — The Sahara Desert was a savannah during the so-called mid-Holocene, about 7–8 kya. It appears to have been slowly drying up since.

  7. john says:

    Brute:

    You seem to believe the existence of natural forces somehow precludes AGW. Look, the real question to ask, is what happens when AGW is superimposed on short-term phenomena such as La Nina and El Nino and long term changes such as solar activity, and intermittent changes such as unusually high volcanic activity (Such as the PETM and the Permian die-off).

    And the answer is, some truly scary things can happen. The lesson is most definitely not that naturally occuring changes and man-made ones are somehow mutually exclusive. It is that together they can spell catastrophe — and the only part we can control is human-induced changes — which of course, means we must control them.

  8. Brute says:

    Thanks Mauri. Yes, I know.

    I wanted to see how Joe Romm explained that fact. I’m certain that he would say something such as “yes, it has been expanding…….but, but, but, it would not be expanding as fast as it is except for the fact that Mr. Brute’s car burns 1 gallon of gas to travel 20 miles”.

    Alarmists………always leave out little bits of information such as that…………GLACIERS ARE RETREATING! WE’RE ALL DOOMED!…..when the fact is that all glaciers have been retreating at various rates for the last 10,000 years.

    John,

    How conceited. To think that mankind can control or influence the weather of the entire planet is the epitome of arrogance. The Sun will determine the weather on our planet, not my furnace, SUV or your “carbon footprint”.

    If you think that burning fossil fuels harms the environment, I suggest YOU stop burning them. I don’t, and will continue to use as much fuel as I care to pay for.

    “Global warming” ceased 10 years ago……look it up.

    (Look for Joe Romm to delete this post as heretical to his environmental religious beliefs).

  9. David B. Benson says:

    Brute — Actually, glaciers had notably re-expansions around 7000 and 5300 years ago. Others since. Sorry, you are just wrong. Once again.

    Here are the decadal averages since 1850 CE from the HadCRUTv3 global temperature product:

    http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/10yave.jpg

    putting the lie to “‘Global warming’ ceased 10 years ago……look it up.” Sorry, you are just wrong. Once again.

  10. Brute says:

    John writes:

    “Look, the real question to ask, is what happens when AGW is superimposed on short-term phenomena”

    Brute writes:

    Oh, so now the argument has changed…..this is a new twist. So now, every weather event WILL be worse than it would have been if not for my leaving the porch light on overnight.

    Maybe you’ve forgotten that Al Gore and company prophesized that “global warming” will cause more intense hurricanes with higher frequency, (I didn’t)…..another environmental prediction in the dustbin of the global warming Eco-Condriacs. Didn’t/hasn’t happened……global temperatures are dropping and CO2 levels continue to rise. The theory is a fraud. Look for temperatures to continue a downward trend due to solar inactivity, (or not).

    Bundle up and wear your hat!

  11. exusian says:

    Brute wrote: “To think that mankind can control or influence the weather of the entire planet is the epitome of arrogance.”

    Brute has that exactly backwards: To think that mankind can have no influence on the weather of the entire planet is the epitome of arrogance.

    “I don’t, and will continue to use as much fuel as I care to pay for.”

    Now this is true arrogance.

  12. Brute says:

    Here’s a (partial) list of the
    specific glaciers that are growing:

    • NORWAY
    Ålfotbreen Glacier
    Briksdalsbreen Glacier
    Nigardsbreen Glacier
    Hardangerjøkulen Glacier
    Hansebreen Glacier
    Jostefonn Glacier
    Engabreen glacier (The Engabreen glacier
    is the second largest glacier in Norway. It is a
    part (a glacial tongue) of the Svartisen glacier,
    which has steadily increased in mass since the
    1960s when heavier winter precipitation set in.)
    • Norway’s glaciers growing at record pace. The face of the Briksdal glacier, an off-shoot of the largest glacier in Norway and mainland Europe, is growing by an average 7.2 inches (18 centimeters) per day. (From the Norwegian daily Bergens Tidende.) See http://www.sepp.org/controv/afp.html

    Click here to see mass balance of Norwegian glaciers:
    http://www.nve.no/

    Choose “English” (at top of the page), choose “Water,”
    then “Hydrology,” then “Glaciers and Snow” from the menu.
    You’ll see a list of all significant glaciers in Norway.
    (Thanks to Leif-K. Hansen for this info.)
    • CANADA
    Helm Glacier
    Place Glacier
    • France
    Mt. Blanc
    • ECUADOR
    Antizana 15 Alpha Glacier
    • SWITZERLAND
    Silvretta Glacier
    • KIRGHIZTAN
    Abramov
    • RUSSIA
    Maali Glacier (This glacier is surging. See below)
    • GREENLAND See Greenland Icecap Growing Thicker
    Greenland glacier advancing 7.2 miles per year! The BBC recently ran a documentary, The Big Chill, saying that we could be on the verge of an ice age. Britain could be heading towards an Alaskan-type climate within a decade, say scientists, because the Gulf Stream is being gradually cut off. The Gulf Stream keeps temperatures unusually high for such a northerly latitude.
    One of Greenland’s largest glaciers has already doubled its rate of advance, moving forward at the rate of 12 kilometers (7.2 miles) per year. To see a transcript of the documentary, go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/bigchilltrans.shtml

    • NEW ZEALAND
    All 48 glaciers in the Southern Alps have grown during the past year.
    The growth is at the head of the glaciers, high in the mountains, where they
    gained more ice than they lost. Noticeable growth should be seen at the
    foot of the Fox and Franz Josef glaciers within two to three years.(27 May 2003)
    Fox, Franz Josef glaciers defy trend – New Zealand’s two best-known
    glaciers are still on the march – 31 Jan 07 – See Franz Josef Glacier
    • SOUTH AMERICA
    – Argentina’s Perito Moreno Glacier (the largest glacier in Patagonia)
    is advancing at the rate of 7 feet per day. The 250 km² ice formation,
    30 km long, is one of 48 glaciers fed by the Southern Patagonian Ice
    Field. This ice field, located in the Andes system shared with Chile,
    is the world’s third largest reserve of fresh water.
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perito_Moreno_Glacier

    – Chile’s Pio XI Glacier (the largest glacier in the southern hemisphere)
    is also growing.

    • UNITED STATES
    – Colorado (scroll down to see AP article)
    – Washington (Mount St. Helens, Mt. Rainier* and Mt. Shuksan)
    (scroll down to see photo of Mt. Baker)
    – California (Mount Shasta – scroll down for info)
    – Montana (scroll down for info)
    – Alaska (Mt. McKinley and Hubbard).
    (scroll down to see article on Hubbard Glacier)

    • Antarctic ice grows to record levels
    13 Sep 07 – While the Antarctic Peninsula area has warmed
    in recent years and ice near it diminished during the Southern
    Hemisphere summer, the interior of Antarctica has been colder
    and ice elsewhere has been more extensive and longer lasting,
    See Antarctic ice grows to record levels
    .
    .
    • Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back
    19 Feb 08 – A Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly
    a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and
    buttressing arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.
    See Most snow cover since 1966
    .
    .
    • Mount St. Helens’ Crater Glacier Advancing Three Feet Per Day
    25 Jun 07 – See Crater Glacier

    • Against odds, glacier grows in cauldron of Mt. St. Helens
    15 May 08 – See Glacier grows in cauldron of Mt. St. Helens

    • Mount St. Helens glacier (Crater Glacier) growing 50 feet per year September 20, 2004 – See Mount St. Helens
    • Glaciers growing on California’s Mount Shasta!
    12 Oct 03 – See Mount Shasta Glaciers Growing
    • Geologists Unexpectedly Find 100 Glaciers in Colorado
    7 Oct 01 See Colorado Glaciers Growing
    • Washington’s Nisqually Glacier is Growing
    See Nisqually Glacier
    • Glaciers in Montana’s Glacier Park on the verge of growing
    5 Oct 2002. See Glacier Park
    • Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing thicker
    See Antarctic Icecap Growing Thicker
    See construction crane buried in the Antarctic Ice Sheet
    * * *
    Himalayan Glaciers Not Shrinking
    Glacial Experts Question Theory of Global Warming
    15 Feb 07 – See Himalayan Glaciers Not Shrinking
    .
    .
    Many people have asked why some glaciers in South America are melting. I think it is perfectly understandable. Remember, we have had two of the strongest El Ninos on record during the past 21 years. During an El Nino, a narrow band of the Pacific Ocean warms by as much as 14 degrees. This band of warm water travels east essentially along the equator until it slams into South America.
    It seems logical that the increased rainfall caused by El Nino, plus the warmer winds blowing across the warmer water, could hasten glacial melt. But let me say it again. I do not believe that this is caused by humans, I think it is caused by the El Nino phenomenon, which is caused by underwater volcanism, which is increasing due to the ice-age cycle.
    With this said, let me point out many glaciers in South America remain stable, and some – including the Pio XI Glacier and the Perito Moreno Glacier – are growing. The Pio XI Glacier is the largest glacier in the southern hemisphere. The Moreno Glacier is the largest glacier in Patagonia.
    I find it curious that news reports do not mention these two glaciers.
    * * *
    Contrary to previous reports, Arctic ice did not thin during the 1990s, say researchers at the Department of Oceanography at Göteborg University in Göteborg, Sweden.
    .
    .
    Alaska Glacier Surges -17 Mar 06
    See McGinnis Glacier
    .
    .
    Look at what’s happening on Mt. Baker, in Washington State. (Mt. Baker is near Mt. Shukson, where glaciers are now growing.)

  13. Brute says:

    Mr. Benson,

    You are correct. I should have written that all glaciers have been retreating AND ADVANCING, at varying rates for the past 10,000 years…………and all the while CO2 levels continue to rise.

    Thanks for correcting me.

    See you @ harmless sky/New Statesman continuation? Max is asking for you.

  14. Paul K says:

    Visit this very infomative site to learn all about Great Lakes water levels. A quote: “Great Lakes water levels tend to follow a cyclical pattern. The Great Lakes system experienced extremely high water levels in the 1870s, early 1950s, early 1970s, mid-1980s and mid-1990s. Extremely low water levels were experienced in the late 1920s, mid-1930s, mid-1960s, and in the late 1990s leading up to today.”

  15. David B. Benson says:

    Brute — Wrong again. CO2 levels did not begin to rise above typical Holocene values before about 1850 CE.

    And just repeating stuff about advancing glaciers does not take all glaciers into account. On average across the globe, glacier ice is in decline. So yoou are wrong again.

  16. David B. Benson says:

    Paul K — Thanks for the link, but those grpahs stop in 1998 CE. Using recent data ought to show much lower levels than at any time in the record.

    And by the way, ‘oscillate’ is preferred to ‘cyclic’, since there appears to be no period or even pseudoperiod.

  17. exusian says:

    David Benson Said: “Brute — Wrong again.”

    Brute is so far off he isn’t even wrong.

  18. David B. Benson says:

    exusian — :-)

  19. Paul K says:

    David B. Benson,
    That was the 10 second Google. Apparently you and Brute and some others are familiar to each other from other sites. Whether you stop at 1998 or 2008, you are still taking a ten year snapshot of a measured 150 years of a multi millennial system. IMHO trying to ascribe phenomenon known to be cyclical over thousand of years to a less than one degree warming over a century is one reason skeptics stay skeptical. Lake Chad has been shrinking for thousands of years. The Sahara has been growing at a fairly steady rate for thousands of years. It has little or nothing to do with global warming. More importantly, you can accept the worst global warming predictions as fact and still accept that Lake Chad and the Sahara are totally incorrect examples.

  20. David B. Benson says:

    Paul K — It does appear that Lake Chad and the Sahara are ‘not correct examples’. Maybe Australia and the US southwest are correct examples. And maybe Turkey and the Urkraine are correct examples. But in all these cases, drought makes it harder to grow food.

    As does too much rain (American mid-west).

    Regareding the global warming of about 0.8 K in 150+ years. That is a lot. The global temperature is now about as warm as at any time in the Holocene. The scary part is that it will become warmer.

    As we leave the comfort of the Holocene behind on our climate adventures, we are in danger of leaving agriculture behind as well. Because there has only been agriculture during the Holocene.

  21. Paul K says:

    These drought examples are also incorrect as they are routine extreme during the Holocene. What climate science says is likely with a 21st Century warming of 3C or greater is not happening now.

    “The scary part is that it will become warmer.” When will that be? It’s gotten warmer. Well, actually it’s gotten less cool. The rise in global temperature is dominated by higher lows rather than higher highs. It rose pretty good late in the last century after falling mid-century, eventually surpassing the early century .5C rise by .1C and hitting what everyone agrees was an anomalous peak in 1998. You need at least eleven years to do a proper regression. The ones I have seen indicate that we haven’t gotten any warmer in the last eleven years. Current climate science is that this lack of trend will likely continue for another seven years. Fear is the hunter

  22. Brute says:

    ‘The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 and every year since 2001′.

    Global warming stopped? Surely not.

    [JR: Brute -- keep it shorter, use a link, avoid disinformatioin.]

  23. Brute says:

    Mr. Benson,
    I see water levels in the Great Lakes…. two below mean, two above mean and one about average (mean). None are near the historical record lows. With the record amounts of snow and rain this year, I don’t think your dream of parched/dry lakebeds is going to happen anytime soon.

    I did see many articles reporting that global warming “may” effect water levels, but just as the rest of the Alarmist predictions, this one isn’t coming to fruition either.

    http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/now/wlevels/levels.html

  24. Brute says:

    Global Warming Indeed……………

    Cold Irony: Arctic Sea Ice Traps Climate Tour Icebreaker
    27/05/2008

    Stuck in the arctic ice that doesn’t exist. (file photo: EcoPhotoExplorers)

    Last year as arctic sea ice melted to record levels, panic set in for many. But then, as the sea ice rebounded and froze again quickly in the 2007/2008 winter, making up for that record loss and reaching heights not seen for several years, many exclaimed that even though the ice areal extent had recovered, this new ice was “thin” and would likely melt again quickly. There were also many news stories about how the Northwest Passage was ice free for the first time “ever”. For example, Backpacker Magazine ran a story saying “The ice is so low that the photos clearly show a viable northwest passage sea route along the coasts of Greenland, Canada, and Alaska.”

    Cashing in on the panic that has set in with the help of some climate alarmists, tour operators like Quark Expeditions of Norwalk Connecticut are offering polar expeditions catering to that “see it before it’s gone” travel worry. One of them is in fact a trip though the Northwest Passage on a former Soviet Icebreaker called the Kapitan Khlebnikov which is a massive 24,000 horsepower Polar Class icebreaker capable of carrying 108 passengers in relative luxury through the arctic wilderness. Here is some background on this icebreaker:

    Kapitan Khlebnikov – The Kapitan Khlebnikov was built in Finland in 1981 and is one of three vessels of this class. Not simply an ice-reinforced ship, the Kapitan Khlebnikov is a powerful polar class icebreaker, which has sailed to extremely remote corners of the globe with adventurous travelers since 1992. It was the first ship ever to circumnavigate Antarctica with passengers in 1996-97. See more on this vessel at Wikipedia

    According to Quark Expeditions, they’ve even fitted this icebreaker with a heated indoor swimming pool, exercise room and sauna, and a theater-style auditorium for “Expedition Team presentations” ( presumably so you can watch Gore’s AIT polar bear tears while in situ ). It is quite a difference from the travel conditions that Robert Peary experienced just 99 years ago when he reached the North Pole.

    One of my alert readers, Walt from Canada, pointed out this story in the Globe and Mail on may 24th in the travel section. It seems the irony of a polar expedition to see such things as record sea ice loss being stopped cold by the very ice that doesn’t exist was not lost on the editors.

  25. Paul K says:

    Brute,
    How ’bout just a link and maybe a brief quote from these articles? Saves page space.

  26. hapa says:

    yeah you could compile them, call it “truthy readers’ digest”

  27. Mauri Pelto says:

    Brute you cannot just make stuff up and expect to convince us. Your point about variations in Lacke Chad have merit. But then your credibility is lost when you go off topic to glaciers and are just wrong. Since I personally work on glaciers on Mount Shuksan and Mount Baker and many others I know that almost all you cite are not advancing, they are retreating. The World Glacier Monitoring Service is the official body submitting glacier monitoring data to. It is not worth the time to go glacier by glacier and refute your points. Briksdalsbreen in particular has been retreating rapidly, http://envisense.org/glacsweb/photos/briks-panos/index.html. Suffice it to say in my experience having measured directly by standing on them 217 glaciers, I have seen more disappear, 7, then advance 3. http://www.nichols.edu/departments/glacier/

  28. Ecostew says:

    Recent NOAA assessment on climate change.

    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080619_climatereport.html

    Among the major findings reported in this assessment are that droughts, heavy downpours, excessive heat, and intense hurricanes are likely to become more commonplace as humans continue to increase the atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

  29. civil behavior says:

    Anyone with any grip on world economics knows that green technology is going to huge, and thanks to Bush the US is pretty much at the bottom of the pile of developed countries investing in this technology.

    Once again, Republican incompetence means the US is playing catch-up with the rest of the world. The US car industry is the first and most obvious casualty, with Japanese manufacturers wiping the floor of US gas guzzling dinosaurs with their equally big but better made and more economic to run machines. Not to mention other cutting edge technology Japan has invested in.

    That’s just the start. Whether you believe global warming is anthropogenic the fact remains that most of the world does believe that the alternative fuel economy is important and are, in many ways, rubbing their hands in glee at the US lack of vision and incompetence.

    Brute simply exemplifies “old” thinking. As long as he worships at the altar of the Mysterium Espritium known as THE ECONOMY, the one True God, the only one he really believes in while the world goes up in flames his argument serves only to reveal his stupendous human arrogance and greed.

    When you refuse to disclose your argument rests on greed then its pretty hard to acknowledge you might possibly be wrong. It would mean humility might reign over greed.

    Should anyone be around to record or read it, history will scratch it’s head and wonder how such greed, selfishness and arrogance In the US overwhelmed solid and honest science and in the process condemned hundreds of millions to hardship, deprivation, dislocation and death. When things are too far gone to effect change meaningful in our lives the Mea Culpas will ring hollow.

  30. Brute says:

    Mr. Pelto,

    When were these glaciers formed? What was the global average temperature at that time?…. When did they reach their maximum extent? At the end of the last ice age, these glaciers had reached their maximum and have been (generally) receding since that time. There have been periods of warming and cooling since that time wherein glaciers have retreated/advanced at varying rates. Looking at a Twenty, Fifty or even One Hundred year periods of time when evaluating glaciers is ludicrous. Altitude, precipitation, albedo are just a few of the conditions to consider.

    Where I am sitting right now, (East Coast USA) existed an ice sheet miles thick 10,000 years ago. The Arctic ice cap is a remnant of this previous ice age as are these glaciers. The average global temperature has been (naturally), rising since that time. Over the last +/- 10,000 years these ice sheets and glaciers have been retreating and will (most likely) continue to do so barring a long period of solar inactivity. My point is, (as you have confirmed) that not ALL glaciers are retreating as Al Gore and the rest of his Chicken Little friends hysterically assert.

    I don’t think that ANYONE can truly appreciate the amount of time involved with these events/sequences. Earth has experienced much warmer periods and much cooler periods in its 4.5 BILLION year history. Can you really appreciate that amount of time and the changes that have occurred during it? You actually believe that 150 years of burning oil is going to overwhelm the natural cyclical time table of the entire planet? Can you even begin to fathom the immense scale of the Sun and the amount of energy it produces every second compared to mankind’s puny contribution?

  31. David B. Benson says:

    Brute — Wrong again.

    90–7000 years ago:

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=914542

  32. Brute says:

    Ecostew,

    Extreme Weather

    Speaking of extremes, 2/3rds of extreme high temperatures records, (higher record temperatures) in the 50 United States were achieved before 1950, at a time when CO2 levels were lower than today. As CO2 levels rise, according to the “global warming theory”, temperatures should also rise, breaking previously recorded extreme highs.

    That isn’t happening.

    Shall we look at GLOBAL high temperature records?

    State high temperature records…..

    State Temp Date
    Ala. 112 Sept. 5, 1925
    Alaska 100 June 27, 1915
    Ariz. 128 June 29, 1994
    Ark. 120 Aug. 10, 1936
    Calif. 134 July 10, 1913
    Colo. 118 July 11, 1888
    Conn. 106 July 15, 1995
    Del. 110 July 21, 1930
    Fla. 109 June 29, 1931
    Ga. 112 July 24, 1952
    Hawaii 100 April 27,1931
    Idaho 118 July 28, 1934
    Ill. 117 July 14, 1954
    Ind. 116 July 14, 1936
    Iowa 118 July 20, 1934
    Kansas 121 July 24, 1936
    Ky. 114 July 28, 1930
    La. 114 Aug. 10, 1936
    Maine 105 July 10, 1911
    Md. 109 July 10, 1936
    Mass. 107 Aug. 2, 1975
    Mich. 112 July 13, 1936
    Minn. 114 July 6, 1936
    Miss. 115 July 29, 1930
    Mo 118 July 14, 1954
    Mont. 117 July 5, 1937
    Neb. 118 July 24, 1936
    Nev. 125 June 29, 1994
    N.H. 106 July 4, 1911
    N.J. 110 July 10, 1936
    N.M. 122 June 27, 1994
    N.Y. 108 July 22, 1926
    N.C. 110 Aug. 21, 1983
    N.D. 121 July 6, 1936
    Ohio 113 July 21, 1934
    Okla. 120 June 27, 1994
    Ore. 119 Aug. 10, 1898
    Pa. 111 July 10, 1936
    R.I. 104 Aug. 2, 1975
    S.C. 111 June 28, 1954
    S.D. 120 July 15, 2006
    Tenn. 113 Aug. 9, 1930
    Texas 120 Aug. 12, 1936
    Utah 117 July 5, 1985
    Vt. 105 July 4, 1911
    Va. 110 July 15, 1954
    Wash. 118 Aug. 5, 1961
    W. Va. 112 July 10, 1936
    Wis. 114 July 13, 1936
    Wyo. 116 Aug. 8, 1983

    Total Before 1950, 33

  33. Brute says:

    Paul K,

    Romm deletes my posts if they contain links. I’ll try harder to pear them down.

  34. David B. Benson says:

    Brute — You clearly still fail to understand the statistics of record-breaking events. So you are just

    wrong again.

  35. Brute says:

    Ecostew,
    Viewing your link I read the following:
    • Abnormally hot days and nights, along with heat waves, are very likely to become more common. Cold nights are very likely to become less common.
    • Sea ice extent is expected to continue to decrease and may even disappear in the Arctic Ocean in summer in coming decades.
    • Precipitation, on average, is likely to be less frequent but more intense.
    • Droughts are likely to become more frequent and severe in some regions.
    • Hurricanes will likely have increased precipitation and wind.
    • The strongest cold-season storms in the Atlantic and Pacific are likely to produce stronger winds and higher extreme wave heights.
    “very likely to become more common” (or not), “very likely to become less common” (or not), “expected” (or not), “may even disappear” (or not), “likely to be less frequent” (or not), “likely to become more frequent and severe in “SOME” regions” (or not), “will likely have increase precipitation and wind” (or not), “likely to produce stronger winds” (or not)…….etc.

    Seems “very general” don’t you think? Non-committal…..In other words, these things may happen or they may not. If we’re wrong, too bad, we goofed! Let’s reconfigure the world economy based on things that may (or may not) happen.

    Another problem; the previous prophesies of the doomsday Eco-Condriacs haven’t happened either.

    “The famous humorist and writer Mark Twain once said, “Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.”

    I consider the theory that global warming is caused by mankind to be just one more example of the continuing tradition scientists have of extrapolating well beyond what they think they know. In his 1883 book Life on the Mississippi, Mark Twain also expressed perfectly the proclivity of scientists for turning observations of the natural world into long range predictions which were clearly outlandish.

    Twain humorously extrapolated an observed change in the length of the Mississippi River forward and back in time by millions of years to demonstrate the absurdity of the conclusions one can reach when one assumes something currently observed will continue to happen at the same rate, indefinitely.

    Twain famously concluded, “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact.”

  36. Brute says:

    civil behavior,

    Seems as if Americans and “old thinking” are prevailing…..

    Poll: most Britons doubt cause of climate change

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/22/climatechange.carbonemissions

  37. David B. Benson says:

    Brute — The thread is about environmental changes.

    Could you at least stay sort of on-topic?

    Because going off-topic is being

    wrong again.

  38. John Hollenberg says:

    Brute,

    If you want to educate yourself, see the links I posted in this thread:

    http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/19/science-greenland-can-warm-2-to-4-%c2%b0c-in-one-year/#comments

    that refer to IPCC 4th Assessment Report. There you will find the meaning of “verry likely (90% chance), etc.

  39. beefeater says:

    A satellite photo of Britain 8000 years ago would have shown it to be part of the European continent. No English Channel, no River Thames and very little North Sea.

  40. Brute says:

    John Hollenberg,

    “verry likely (90% chance),”

    Great, now they are defining the likelihood of suppositions……sounds like a definite maybe. They can’t get the weather forecast correct for next week, much less next decade.

  41. David B. Benson says:

    beefeater wrote “… no River Thames …’ That much I disagree with. The river probably drained north along the approximate middle of what is no the English Channel.

    And are you sure about the date?

  42. Ecostew says:

    The likely, very likely, etc. terminology is used based on probability of occurrence and is grounded in more formal scientific statistics or expert peer-reviewed scientific consensus.

  43. Paul K says:

    Ecostew,
    I think you’ll find the likely, very likely confidence levels are grounded more on subjective judgment than you now believe.

  44. Ecostew says:

    I do not “believe”, the assessments are grounded in peer-reviewed science.

  45. Brute says:

    Ecostew,

    So let me get this straight……the “likely”, “very likely”, “less likely”, “maybe”, “more or less common”, descriptions are based on climate models, (computer simulations) that predicted a precipitous rise in temperature with increasing levels of CO2 which has not occurred since 1998? These are the same computer simulations that could not predict PAST weather events with observed/existing data provided?

    The observations and the computer models don’t match…..maybe the observed conditions and actual temperature readings are incorrect?

    The simulations are correct, the thermometers are wrong?

    Limitations of Climate Models as Predictors of Climate Change
    http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba396/

  46. Brute says:

    Climate prediction: No model for success

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7381250.stm

  47. Brute says:

    May 22, 2008
    Almost No Correlation Between Climate Models And Reality

    http://ginacobb.typepad.com/gina_cobb/2008/05/near-zero-corre.html

    This new study goes on to examine six popular Climate Models, by looking at old temperature data from different locations on the planet. Then they try predict the weather and climate using the models. All the models failed completely. They were no better than chance, and the correlation between their predictions and the real weather were almost zero.

  48. Brute says:

    Local weather forecasters did get it right though…..we do have thunderstorms this evening, that were predicted for YESTERDAY.

  49. civil behavior says:

    Brute

    Did you even read the article you linked? (No model for success)

    Essentially it says that warming is happening. The only problem the scientists have with the modeling is that they don’t have the computer power in order to input the rapidity of the feedbacks that are happening but the consensus is such that they realize we must do something to stop the increase in carbon forcing which is creating this exponential unpredictable feedback. It isn’t a matter of if, it’s a matter of how quickly.

    And as to the post you linked specifically for me. Somehow you think that by referring to a poll that says the majority of Britons doubt global warming is happening it’s supposed to prove to me that it isn’t? I see you have gleaned the best scientific minds in the fields of global warming and then drawn a conclusion by telling me a poll of Britons don’t agree? You’re joking right?

    Why it should be a surprise to you that most people do not want to support the need to discontinue a pimped lifestyle such as you have been living and change their behavior to accepting personal responsibility for the changes that are occurring? That is not news.

    What is news is that in just the last 50 years, glaciers have receded in startling amounts. “Permafrost” in Alaska and Siberia that had been frozen for centuries is now mud, the growing season in the US has increased by as much as two weeks. The day of ice-in and ice-out in major rivers and lakes have changed dramatically, and records of animal migration, and wild plant growth are showing conclusively that things are not as they were, only 50 years ago.

    Things do not change this quickly, without some major force. This time, it wasn’t volcanism, or tectonic shifting, or meteor impact.

    I wonder, what has changed?
    It’s really kind of hard to you imagine what kind of mind it takes to write off the entire planet for your own gain.
    And as for Gina, your erudite informed source, she is simply one more person that does not have the scientific background or data to back them up. After all, a survey of peer-reviewed articles in the last 13 years showed over 1000 articles on global climate trends, not a single one showed data contradicting GW.

    So you and Gina claim on philosophical argument, that the earth is too big for man to have any effect. Or you claim that man is too inconsequential. You say the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and has had natural cycles. Of course you fail to understand that the boundary conditions were vastly different than now!

    Give it up Brute. You are simply incapable of believing that you can be a part of the solution. You could care less.

  50. Ecostew says:

    Brute – wrong again in so many ways.

  51. Brute says:

    civil behavior,

    What the BBC article states, is that the models (to date) have been poor predictors of climate change; that they have failed to accurately predict future, (or past) weather patterns for 18 years………the information disseminated by the IPCC politicians is based on this faulty information. The article goes on to read that basic climate knowledge is poorly understood and not enough information exists to be downloaded into the simulations, (garbage in/garbage out).

    So, the predictions and hysterical ranting of the IPCC are based on computer simulations that have been PROVEN to be inaccurate. You would have the entire world economy revamped based on these inaccurate models? The models predicted a more significant rise in global temperatures which hasn’t happened.

    The article is a contradiction of the Alarmist position in that on one hand there will be devastating consequences if action is not taken NOW to curtail energy use while at the same time saying that their models are inaccurate and more funds are needed to built faster computers. I realize that the article was written by the BBC and some opinions/assertions may be clouded, (pun intended), but the point is that the models are woefully inaccurate and more study, (and funding) is being requested (at taxpayer expense), by scientists, universities and think tanks to study the topic, (sort of self serving, don’t you think?).

    From the article:

    “One trouble is that as some climate uncertainties are resolved, new uncertainties are uncovered.”

    “Some modellers are now warning that feedback mechanisms in the natural environment which either accelerate or mitigate warming may be even more difficult to predict than previously assumed.”

    “Research suggests the feedbacks may be very different on different timescales and in response to different drivers of climate change.”

    “Just last week, preliminary research at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Kiel, Germany, suggested that natural variations in sea temperatures will cancel out the decade’s 0.3C global average rise predicted by the IPCC, before emissions start to warm the Earth again after 2015.”

    “but he told BBC News that basic science on the carbon cycle is too poorly understood to make a meaningful contribution to models.”

    “Clouds are the biggest “known unknown”. Those with low tops bounce the Sun’s energy back into space to keep us cooler, whereas high-level clouds tend to trap heat radiating upwards from the Earth.”

    The Gina Cobb article is a commentary regarding this paper:

    Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series

    http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/850

    Did you open the link?

  52. Brute says:

    Civil Behavior,

    To address the rest of your previous comment, let me clarify a few points:

    1. I’m an Engineer involved with implementing LEEDS Standards and Energy Star ratings for commercial clients. I have personally been responsible for shedding millions of kilowatt hours from my client’s energy bills. If anything I am benefiting from the global warming hysteria and I am part of the “solution” that you ascribe to.

    2. Personal Habits: I have designed and built my own home utilizing the latest in energy saving technologies; highest efficiency HVAC systems, high efficiency condensing natural gas furnace, point of use water heaters, energy efficient windows and highest efficiency insulation schemes. We utilize a “whole house” fan allowing us to operate the air conditioning system(s) only on the most brutal summer days. We have propagated large shade trees in an effort to utilize natural cooling effects. I use compact fluorescent light bulbs, (my wife hates them) and skylights. I happen to drive a large heavy vehicle, (22 miles per gallon), due to safety concerns…..I’ve seen what happens to the small lightweight automobiles when they suddenly come into contact at a high rate of speed with immovable objects and didn’t like what I saw. I don’t “joyride”….. I drive where I need to go on a direct route and bundle my trips to avoid using more gasoline than necessary, (because I’m cheap, not because I think I’m going to “save the planet”).

    3. I don’t believe that I’ve written that the earth hasn’t experienced ANY warming, but if I have, I was mistaken. The Earth may have in fact warmed .6 degrees over the last 100 years….the cause of the warming is what I dispute. Common sense tells me that THE IMMENSE NUCLEAR FURNACE at the middle of our solar system may have something to do with it.

    [JR: Enough, Brute. If this is your common sense, then you don't have much, what else can we say. The science has long since passed by your uninformed position.]

  53. Brute says:

    JR,

    By the way, I appreciate you not butchering this thread. In know that you disagree with practically everything that I write, but the continuity of this dialogue has been a refreshing change.

  54. gLORIA s says:

    Joe has been quiet because he’s been busy considering a job offer from the anti-corn syrup folks.

  55. Joe says:

    I was actually on a 2-day non-work trip with limited blogging opportunities. I didn’t see all of this silliness Brute posted. Who would have imagined a LEED person would believe all this nonsense.

  56. Brute says:

    Joe,

    You guys are going about this thing using the wrong approach. If you convinced people that they would have more money in their bank accounts or cut their operating expenses by being energy efficient you would achieve your goal of lowering energy consumption, (and emissions).

    People would buy and implement energy efficient technologies/strategies IF IT PAYS TO DO SO. Attempting to convince people to conserve energy through guilt, regulation, scaremongering and excessive taxation elicits resentment and anger. People don’t trust politicians/government types……never have. People/businesses feel empowered if they have the ability to control their own lives and finances.

    People do not appreciate or respond to lectures and admonishment.

  57. David B. Benson says:

    Brute clearly suffers from a bad case of

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

  58. civil behavior says:

    Brute,

    Thank you for proving my point over and over.

    “If you convinced people that they would have more money in their bank accounts ”

    “IF IT PAYS TO DO SO”

    “People/businesses feel empowered if they have the ability to control their own…..finances.”

    Anything to make a buck. Anything.

    The boreal forest and Arctic tundra have switched from being a sink for carbon dioxide and become a source.

    Analysis of Antarctic ice cores shows that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are 30% higher now than in the last millions of years and this build-up is linked to temperature changes.

    Coho marine survival in the Strait of Georgia, Puget Sound and off the coast of Washington and Oregon has declined. This started in the late 1980’s and synchronizes with climate change A distinct warming trend is affecting zoo- and phytoplankton and there is less nutrient to support the biomass. There are fewer nutrients because the warm water caps the nutrients and they do not come to the surface. This is the area where juvenile fish spend time.

    Warmer temperatures will lead to a more vigorous hydrologic cycle, increasing the prospects for more intense rainfall, floods, or droughts in some regions. See this years extreme weather as examples.

    Ground in the Northern Hemisphere that’s been frozen since the last Ice Age is melting and collapsing. Animals are changing migration and mating habits. And glaciers are melting and shrinking at alarming rates.

    Human greenhouse gases warm the Earth’s surface. These include:
    Carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels
    Carbon dioxide from controlled agricultural burning
    Carbon dioxide from uncontrolled burning of coal seams
    Carbon dioxide from production of concrete
    Methane from disturbed and flooded land, including rice fields
    Methane from uncontrolled leakage of natural gas

    So your attempt at shedding kwh and driving a large vehicle because your afraid of dying in a car accident pale in comparison to the larger issues we are talking about above.

    I figure your being an engineer explains it all. This is s not a simple problem of “engineering” with some quick fix coming down the pike to save the day. It’s a planet. You can’t just take it apart and put it back together again.

    It is truly an embarassment that Americans like yourself have the opportunity to step up to the plate and lead and you shirk from providing leadership because of your sense of entitlement. If you can’t lead Brute, then step out of the way. The rest of us plan to protect the earth community from extinction

  59. Brute says:

    “The rest of us plan to protect the earth community from extinction”

    Good luck tilting at windmills………

    “The rest of you” aren’t getting much traction……the voters don’t share your fanaticism or your apocalyptic delusions, (for good reason).

  60. Brute says:

    The AGW-hypothesis asserts that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs) – notably carbon dioxide – in the atmosphere will cause the globe to warm (global warming: GW), and that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are increasing the carbon dioxide in the air with resulting anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW). I think a clear distinction needs to be made between

    (a) the science of AGW, and

    (b) the perception of AGW – and the use of AGW – by non-scientists.

    The science

    The present empirical evidence strongly indicates that the AGW-hypothesis is wrong; i.e.

    1. There is no correlation between the anthropogenic emissions of GHGs and global temperature.

    2. Change to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is observed to follow change to global temperature at all time scales.

    3. Recent rise in global temperature has not been induced by rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. The global temperature fell from 1940 to 1970, rose from 1970 to 1998, and fell from 1998 to the present (i.e. mid-2008). This is 40 years of cooling and 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940. But atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased at a near-constant rate and by more than 30% since 1940

    4. Rise in global temperature has not been induced by increase to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. More than 80% of the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide has been since 1940, and the increase to the emissions has been at a compound rate of ~0.4% p.a. throughout that time. But that time has exhibited 40 years of cooling with only 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940.

    5. The pattern of atmospheric warming predicted by the AGW hypothesis is absent. The AGW hypothesis predicts most warming of the atmosphere at altitude distant from polar regions. Radiosonde measurements from weather balloons show slight cooling at altitude distant from polar regions.

    The above list provides a complete refutation of the AGW-hypothesis according to the normal rules of science.: i.e. Nothing the hypothesis predicts is observed in the empirical data, and the opposite of the hypothesis’ predictions is observed in the empirical data.

    But politicians and advocates adhere to the hypothesis. They have a variety of motives (i.e. personal financial gain, protection of their career histories and futures, political opportunism, etc..). But support of science cannot be one such motive because science denies the hypothesis.

    Hence, additional scientific information cannot displace the AGW-hypothesis and cannot silence its advocates. And those advocates are not scientists despite some of them claiming that they are.

  61. civil behavior says:

    The obfuscation and obscuring of factual matter on global warming by yourself and fluff blogs such as junkscience.com from which you cut and pasted is childish and smacks of the desperation you are exhibiting.

    Today, you have a widespread scientific consensus supported by national academies and all the major scientific institutions solidy behind the warning that the temperature is rising, anthropogenic CO2 is the cause and the warming will worsen unless we reduce emissions.

    Just because climate science deals in probablities the balance of evidence doesn’t mean that projections of future climate changes are not meaningful or useful. All science is about observation, understanding and prediction. The CONSENSUS of science is that global warming is real.

    The objective of the skeptics like yourself is to spread doubt, not engage in true debate. Mitigation is the name of the game right now.

    As I said before, if you cannot lead then get out of the way. The rest of us are busy trying to save your sorry behind.

  62. exusian says:

    Brute:
    1. false
    2. false, look up End Permian, PETM; and irrelevant, since currently CO2 is being added to the atmosphere directly, not as a feedback to preexisting warming
    3. false, misrepresentation of reality: failure to make any mention of particulate and aerosol global dimming; outright lie: there has been not been 10 years of cooling since 1998
    4: false

    Brute = spammer, liar, and plagiarist

  63. Brute says:

    civil behavior,

    “The CONSENSUS of science is that global warming is real.”

    The CONSENSUS was that the Earth was the center of the universe.

    The Steady State theory was the CONSENSUS among scientists just 50 years ago.

    These theories were PROVEN to be incorrect. The correlation between manmade CO2 and temperature has not been proven, therefore it remains, a THEORY.

    The CONSENSUS in 2003 was to invade Iraq; do the present circumstances meet with your approval? Has the CONSENSUS changed?

  64. Joe says:

    Okay, Brute — or Sen. James Inhofe as most people like to call you — enough wasting everybody’s time by spreading disinformation.

    I have previously explained why “consensus” is the wrong word, it implies “consensus of opinion” whereas human-caused global warming is a well-established theory based on observations and paleoclimate data, much like evolution.

    Your “logic” could obviously be used to disprove all theories:

    The CONSENSUS is that the earth orbits the sun.
    The CONSENSUS is that the North won the Civil War.
    The CONSENSUS is that Brute exists.

    The FACT is that I’m now banning you.

  65. John Hollenberg says:

    > The FACT is that I’m now banning you.

    Thank you. Let’s spend our time talking with people who are open to new information.

  66. exusian says:

    It’s about time, Joe.

    I don’t mind reading and responding to opposing views, but Brute was nothing more that a cut & paste sham.

  67. Anonymous says:

    NATURE IS DYING.

    No matter how you want to twist the words I write NATURE IS DYING. Exponentially. Precipitously. Gravely.

    You are unable to accept your responsibility in it because you are unwilling to give up all the luxuries that you have become so accustomed to while the earth rejects the foulness of your stink.

    This is about your inability to see wholeness and community and something more than outside your own protected zone.

    We cannot help you do that. You either reject the notion that your own sense of entitlement has changed due to the course of planet affairs or you don’t. It’s your choice. I repeat once more, if you cannot lead, then step out of the way.

  68. civil behavior says:

    amen.

  69. David B. Benson says:

    Joe wrote “The FACT is that I’m now banning you.”

    Hooray! :-)

  70. K says:

    DUDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It took me like two hours to read these coments and then another two to understand with whats going on!!!!!!! WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Thanks brute for that large amount of info on Lake Chad I have to do a report on it. But for everything else, I’m sorry to say that I’m not on your side, Face it your wrong

  71. msn nickleri says:

    Was The Sahara Desert always a desert? In other words, how long has The Sahara Desert been expanding?

  72. johnny says:

    yeah, i really think weed should be legalized, um beer does more damage and weed doesn’t!

    legalize the green!