global warming data...garbage in...

[granfire]

And the island nation of Tuvalu, already under negotiations with a variety of places for their ultimate, and inevitable relocation, is the "canary in the coal mine" for rising sea levels from global warming.

View attachment 17203
View attachment 17204
View attachment 17205
View attachment 17206

The Maledives will soon follow...
The I suppose Florida...

 

[billc]

And more pictures...

http://algorelied.com/?p=3564

In light of the recent UN IPCC Himalayan Glaciergate, the Mother Nature Network (MNN) has rushed out some spin claiming glaciers are indeed melting, we caused it, and it is “very scary“. MNN has also put together a photo montage of the “Top 7 disappearing glaciers“, along with alarming commentary.
As the list starts with #7 (The Matterhorn) and ends with #1 (Glacier National Monument), the first image a reader sees are these starkly different photos of the Matterhorn:

c. 1960 & today, Getty Images
​

The photo caption is by MNN. The message that they are trying to obviously convey here is that circa 1960 the Matterhorn was covered with snow, ice, and glaciers, that it was very, very cold, and that today it’s much warmer which has caused all that frozen stuff to melt.
So I asked myself, “Self, have the Matterhorn glaciers really melted that much since 1960 as the photos depict?” Although I’d love to take a trip to The Alps to check it out for myself, I decided a more efficient way to find out quickly would be to visit the image sharing site, Flickr.com, and see from photos that others have uploaded what they discovered on their own. Here’s a couple of relatively recent photos that indeed show a dramatic difference in the amount of white frozen stuff on the Matterhorn:

Photo taken July 15, 2006 by richardcjones & licensed by Creative Commons

Photo taken January 12, 2010 by AndiH & licensed by Creative Commons
​

I suppose an opportunist could conclude from photos that I found on Flickr that the the amount of snow, ice and glaciers on the Matterhorn have actually grown significantly from 2006 to today, but a realist recognizes that this is not necessarily the case, and that a better explanation would be that the photo showing little snow was shot during the summer, and the other showing a blanket of snow was shot during the winter. Regarding the MNN photos presented, no mention is made of what season each photo was shot ,and it’s doubtful that they even want us to consider such inconvenient thoughts. To the contrary, MNN expects readers to just swallow their photos whole, be scared, and do so without asking any pesky questions.
FULL DISCLOSURE: Via Flickr, I did find one photo taken during the winter that shows very little, snow, ice, or glaciers on the Matterhorn, and in which you can even see a waterfall formed by the melting glaciers:

Photo taken January 11,2007 by DTrigger05 & licensed by Creative Commons


​

 

[billc]

On melting glacier hoaxes...

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/ipcc-imperialism-indian-glaciers

Glacier alarmism is not new. Greenpeace once published photos showing the rapid retreat of the Uppsala Glacier in Argentina, ascribing this to global warming. But when I visited the glacier, I was told that global warming was too gradual to account for the dramatic retreat of the glacier, and clearly powerful local causes were responsible. Of several glaciers descending from the South Andean Icefield, Uppsala was retreating, Perrito Moreno was advancing, and several others were stable. Such varying outcomes obviously reflected local geoclimatic variations, not global climate at all.
Will Greenpeace admit it? Not a chance. But if the IPCC wants to make amends for Climategate-II, perhaps it can start by apologising for glacier alarmism. That will help restore its scientific credibility.

More than one incident of glacier melting fake photos...Norway, Argentina, the Himalayas...

 

[billc]

More pictures of glaciers...I know...exciting isn't it...

http://www.greenpacks.org/2009/04/17/worlds-7-largest-glaciers-by-continent/

And some more on the man made global warming hoax...and more pictures of glaciers...

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

And about those "melting glaciers..."

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100%, colspan: 2"]Strange how our research turned up a completely different story. We found 50 glaciers are advancing in New Zealand, others are growing in Alaska, Switzerland, the Himalayas, and even our old friend, Mt. St. Helens is sprouting a brand new crater glacier that is advancing at 3 feet per year.And down south last September, NASA satellites showed the Antarctic Ice Field to be the largest it has ever been in the 30 years it has been observed by satellite (based on an analysis of 347 million radar altimeter measurements made by the European Space Agency's ERS-1 and ERS-2 satellites).[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 50%"]

[/TD]
[TD="width: 50%"]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 50%"]

The terminus of Tsaa Glacier in Icy Bay in July 2005.
Photo by Chris Larsen, Geophysical Institute, UAF​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 50%"]

The terminus of Tsaa Glacier in June 2007 after a recent advance of the glacier. Note the position of the large waterfall. The glacier advanced about one-third of a mile sometime between August 2006 and June 2007.
Photo by Chris Larsen, Geophysical Institute, UAF​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
​

Al Gore tells us the Greenland ice cap is thinning, but he doesn't mention that a newly discovered volcanic "hot spot" may be a contributor, along with warming on the coast due to warmer waters coming up the gulf stream. In general, we found growing glaciers outpacing melting glaciers by a good margin. Nothing like cherry-picking an isolated example to create panic, Al.​

​

---

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 34%"]

[/TD]
[TD="width: 66%"]Our Oceanography friends tell us that the actual measured rise in average ocean levels is on the order of 1.6 millimeters (about the width of a match ) annually. There are 25.4 mm in an inch, so in 25 years, the oceans might be up about 1.5 inches or so if the trend continues. In athousand years, it will be up a whopping 64 inches, and everyone but the NBA is clearly in serious trouble.Al Gore, on the other hand, recently said the problem is much worse than previously thought, and the Polar Ice Cap will be completely gone in 5 years.
We're going to hold you to that, Albert. We wonder if anyone has ever had a Nobel Prize taken back... [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100%, colspan: 2"]

If you make a quick knee-jerk assumption, you'd probably conclude that something has to be melting somewhere to cause such a steady rise, however miniscule. But there's another principle of physics at work here called thermal expansion. When you heat an object, it gets bigger. Since the oceans have been slowly warming over the past few centuries, the volume of the oceans has also been increasing a tiny bit, and that can possibly account for most, if not all, of the 1 mm per year rise in the average sea level.​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
​

---

Old glaciers are a wonderful repository of historical information, because past samples of earth's atmosphere are locked up in them. Coral heads and Sargasso Sea sediments also leave Carbon 14 and Oxygen 18 clues to the past temperature of the earth. We all agree that the historical CO[SUB]2[/SUB] curves and the temperatures curves closely match each other. But when we look closely at the CO[SUB]2[/SUB] and temperature data found locked in ancient ice core samples, we find that increases in CO[SUB]2[/SUB] are actually following increases in temperature and that CO[SUB]2[/SUB] doesn't cause warming - warming causes CO[SUB]2 [/SUB]to increase.​

 

[elder999]

On melting glacier hoaxes...

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/ipcc-imperialism-indian-glaciers



More than one incident of glacier melting fake photos...Norway, Argentina, the Himalayas...

Uhhhh.....no.

[h=1]USGS Repeat Photography Project - Glacier National Park, Montana[/h]

Lots of images like that one, paid for with your tax dollars. :lfao:

 

[billc]

And the other photos...

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/12-more-glaciers-that-havent-heard-the-news-about-global-warming

Source: Discovery

2. Alaska’s Hubbard Glacier. Growing. A lot.
Alaska’s Hubbard Glacier is advancing moving toward Gilbert Point near Yakutat at an average of seven feet per day.
The Army Corp of Engineers’ Hubbard Glacier website for has some great photos of the advancing behemoth.
Source: CDApress.com
3. Norwegian glaciers. Growing again.
IceAgeNow.com reports on the growth of Norwegian glaciers:

“After years of decline, glaciers in Norway are again growing, reports the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate. The actual magnitude of the growth, which appears to have begun over the last two years, has not yet been quantified, says NVE Senior Engineer Hallgeir Elvehøy.”The developments were originally reported by the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK).
​

Source: IceAgeNow.com
4. Glaciers growing on Canada’s tallest mountain
Canada.com tells the tale of glaciers growing on Canada’s tallest mountain:

“Canada’s tallest mountain, the Yukon’s towering Mount Logan, may have experienced a growth spurt.



“The University of Alaska aerial survey, conducted last summer with a laser altimeter by Fairbanks-based geoscientist Sandy Zirnheld, pegged Canada’s geographic zenith at 5,966 metres. That’s seven metres (23 feet) higher than the official height of 5,959 metres, determined in 1992 after a celebrated climb to the top by a team of Canadian researchers led by Mike Schmidt of the Geological Survey of Canada.


“Snow and ice accumulation is the most likely explanation,” Chris Larsen, the scientist leading the University of Alaska’s research on the continent’s northwest mountain ranges, said.”

​

Source: Canada.com
5. North to Alaska and more growing glaciers
Alaska’s glaciers have been in retreat for nearly 200 years. But now they’re advancing again.

MichNews.com reports the cold, hard facts:

“Unusually large amounts of Alaskan snow last winter were followed by unusually chilly temperatures there this summer. “In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years,” says Bruce Molnia of the U.S. Geological Survey, and author of The Glaciers of Alaska. “It’s been a long time on most glaciers where they’ve actually had positive mass balance (added thickness).”
“Overall, Molnia figures Alaska had lost 10–12,000 square kilometers of ice since 1800, the depths of the Little Ice Age. That’s enough ice to cover the state of Connecticut. Climate alarmists claim all the glaciers might disappear soon, but they haven’t looked at the long-term evidence of the 1,500-year Dansgaard-Oeschger climate cycles. During the Little Ice Age—1400 to 1850—Muir Glacier filled the whole of Glacier Bay. Since then, the glacier has retreated 57 miles.
​

Source: MichNews.com

6. Glaciers are growing in California. California?
You might be surprised to learn that the Golden State has glaciers. And the Associated Press says they’re growing:
“Global warming is shrinking glaciers all over the world, but the seven tongues of ice creeping down Mount Shasta’s flanks are a rare exception: They are the only known glaciers in the continental U.S. that are growing.”
Source: FoxNews.com
7. A glacier is growing on Washington’s Mt. St. Helens.
Mount Saint Helens has glaciers? But it’s an active volcano. But, but, but…

KATU-TV reports the details:

“On May 18, 1980, the once bucolic ice-cream cone shape that defined Mount St. Helens in Washington state disappeared in monstrous blast of ash, rock, gas, and heat.
“Inside the volcano, which was once a soft dome of snow but is now a gaping, steaming menace with an unpredictable streak, an unexpected phenomenon is taking place: a glacier is growing.
“In these days of global warming concerns and scientists showing alarming then-and-now images of glaciers disappearing from mountainsides, it may be the only growing glacier in America – or maybe the world.
​

Source: KATU.com
8. Glaciers are growing in France and Switzerland, too
Another continent has reported in. According to an article in the Journal of Geophysical Research, glaciers are growing in France and Switzerland, too:

The research was conducted by six scientists from leading agencies and departments in France and Switzerland that deal with hydrology and glaciology. The research was funded by Observatoire des Sciences de l’Univers de Grenoble (OSUG), the European Programs ALPCLIM and CARBOSOL, and by the city of Chamonix Mont-Blanc.Vincent et al. collected a variety of datasets that could help them understand how the high-elevation glaciers of Mont Blanc were impacted by variations and trends in climate. Among other findings, they found that the mass balance of the glaciers is strongly controlled by precipitation, not temperature.
Vincent et al. state “The most striking features of these figures are the small thickness changes observed over the 20th century. For both areas, thickness variations do not exceed ±15 m. The average changes are +2.6 m at Dôme du Goûter (please note that this glacier is growing) and -0.3 m (-12 inches) at Mont Blanc.
“Considering the uncertainty interval, i.e., ±5 m, it can be concluded that no significant thickness change is detectable over most of these areas”. “All these results suggest that the SMBDôme du Goûter and Mont Blanc did not experience any significant changes over the 20th century.”
​

Source: World Climate Report
9. New Zealand’s largest glaciers are growing

Growing may not be a strong enough word. They’re surging. IceAgeNow.com reports the story:

Guides say the Franz Josef and the Fox glaciers continued advancing down their valleys in the past year and may soon be close to positions reached 40 years ago.
That (supposedly) contrasts sharply with the plight of many glaciers elsewhere on the planet, which are (supposedly) shrinking three times faster than they were in the 1980s, according to the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS).
…
Franz Josef Glacier Guides base manager Tom Arnold estimated the Franz Josef and the Fox had advanced hundreds of meters in the past year.
​

Source: IceAgeNow.com

 

[billc]

Hubbard glacier advancing...I think it's outside my door right now...

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-001-03/fs-001.03.pdf

Hubbard Glacier, the largest calving glacier on the North American Continent (25 percent larger than Rhode Island), advanced across the entrance to 35-mile-long Russell Fiord (fig.1) during June 2002, temporarily turning it into a lake. Hubbard Glacier has been advancing for more than 100 years and has twice closed the entrance to Russell Fiord during the last 16 years by squeezing and pushing submarine glacial sediments across the mouth of the fiord (figs. 2 and 3). Water flowing into the cutoff fiord from mountain streams and glacier melt causes the level of Russell Lake to rise. How- ever both the 1986 and 2002 dams failed (fig. 4) before the lake altitude rose enough for water to spill over a low pass at the far end of the fiord and enter the Situk River drainage, a world- class sport and commercial fishery near Yakutat, Alaska.
Calving Glaciers are Unresponsive to Climate
Hubbard Glacier is defying the global para- digm of valley or mountain glacier shrinkage and retreat in response to global climate warm- ing. Hubbard Glacier is the largest of eight calving glaciers in Alaska that are currently increasing in total mass and advancing. All
140o
13

9o
60o 30'
60o
MT LOGAN
Malaspina Glacier
Osier Is
ALASKA MAP AREA
HYDROLOGIC BASIN BOUNDARIES
USGS Fact Sheet 001—03 January 2003
Malaspina L
Y A K U T A T
B AY
of these glaciers calve into the sea, are at the heads of long fiords, have undergone retreats during the last 1,000 years, calve over relatively 59o shallow submarine moraines, and have unusu- 30' ally small ablation areas compared to their accumulation areas.

 

[granfire]

And more pictures...

http://algorelied.com/?p=3564

for starters the Zugspitze is not a glacier, it's a mountain - pretty much without glacier....

and that last picture is from an amusement park. I am sure they can regulate the waterfall....

 

[Big Don]

I will fear global warming and it's consequences 50-100 to 1000 years from now when anyone can predict the local weather ANYWHERE with 100% accuracy for ONE lousy week, from 6 months ahead of time. Ever notice the weatherman is the only guy who can be wrong 100% of the time and keep his job?

 

[billc]

and some more on glaciers...

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/faqs-and-myths#10

Dr. Tim Patterson writes about Canadian glaciers that researchers from the University of Calgary and the University of Western Ontario have shown that glaciers in the Lake Louise area and at the Athabaska Icefields have receded far above their present limits in the past. We should consider the conditions that cause glaciers to advance and retreat. Obviously, climate warming will cause melt-back of the toe of a glacier (retreat). The cause for advance is primarily increased snowfall at the top of a glacier (the accretion zone). The pressure of the new glacial ice at the top of the glacier will cause the glacier to start flowing downhill more rapidly than the toe is melting; hence, the advance. Cooler temperatures without the increase in snowfall will probably not halt the retreat. It is possible to have a retreat with cool temperatures and low precipitation, and it is possible to have an advance with warm temperatures and heavy snowfall. It has been recorded in the literature that waxing and waning of glaciers all over the world is a common occurrence and that any reference to this being an abnormal thing, due to Global Warming depends on selectively gathered “evidence”. This has been remarkably well illustrated in New Zealand in 2004 with the rapid advance of glaciers in the South Island with the only climatic change being very heavy precipitation.

Patterson's paper...

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/GLACIERS IN CANADA.pdf

It is possible to have a retreat with cool temperatures and low precipitation, and it is possible to have an advance with warm temperatures and heavy snowfall. It has been recorded in the literature that waxing and waning of glaciers all over the world is a common occurrence and that any reference to this being an abnormal thing, due to Global Warming depends on selectively gathered “evidence”. This has been remarkably well illustrated in New Zealand in 2004 with the rapid advance of glaciers in the South Island with the only climatic change being very heavy precipitation.

2. B.H. Luckman from the University of Western Ontario has published research papers on the analysis of wood fragments discovered to be coming out from beneath the tongue of the Athabaska Glacier. These fragments were from two species of trees, Pinus and Abies, both erect species. The Albies species fragment appears to have come from a tree some 150 to 250 years old before being killed and buried by the glacier. C14 dating indicates that the age of the wood fragments range from slightly older than 5,000 to over 8,000 years. This information indicates that from 5,000 to 8,000 years ago mature trees were growing in an area now underneath the Athabaska Glacier. This information ties reasonably well with that from the Lake O’Hara region. Obviously the glacier has advanced, retreated, advanced and is currently retreating the same as the Opabin Glacier.
The writer’s own experience from fairly extensive travel in the Monashee, Selkirk, Purcell and Cariboo ranges confirms that glaciers have retreated and advanced a number of times and that the present retreat is not an unusual event. Not infrequently more than one lateral or even terminal moraine is preserved below a glacier. If the final advance is not as large as some of the previous advances, remnants of the previous moraines will be preserved. Up to three previous lateral moraines preserved below a glacier have been observed by the writer.
All of this demonstrates that there has been a steady ebb and flow of glaciers in the Cordillera and that it is foolish to adopt a “sky is falling” attitude. The previous advances and retreats of the glaciers took place long before the advent of diesel trucks.

 

[granfire]

I will fear global warming and it's consequences 50-100 to 1000 years from now when anyone can predict the local weather ANYWHERE with 100% accuracy for ONE lousy week, from 6 months ahead of time. Ever notice the weatherman is the only guy who can be wrong 100% of the time and keep his job?

well, then look a little bit closer to home:
This year many places in the US broke records for hottest days this summer. And while am where it is now considerably balmy (it feels like damn fall and it's only AUGUST!) and we had quiet some rain, other places are in considerable drought conditions. Is it global warming?
or just reoccuring weather patterns?
I do not know, but I do fear it.

And so should you, because you will see the effects on your monthly food bill.
(and just in case you should suggest irrigation: many places the wells are running dry, and not just in the Texas panhandle where they say they are having conditions similar to the 1930s...)

 

[Big Don]

well, then look a little bit closer to home:
This year many places in the US broke records for hottest days this summer. And while am where it is now considerably balmy (it feels like damn fall and it's only AUGUST!) and we had quiet some rain, other places are in considerable drought conditions. Is it global warming?
or just reoccuring weather patterns?
I do not know, but I do fear it.

And so should you, because you will see the effects on your monthly food bill.
(and just in case you should suggest irrigation: many places the wells are running dry, and not just in the Texas panhandle where they say they are having conditions similar to the 1930s...)

The Weather Channel's website has a ten day forecast you can look at for your city. I look at it every day, it is nothing if not consistent. If 99 is forecast, it is 95, or 97 or 103... Their only business is weather, they can't be 100% right from yesterday to today, let alone Monday thru Friday. What in the world would make me change my life due to their guessing of what will be 100 years from now? That they were close to the mark? A broken watch is right twice a day, but, you don't rely on broken watches.

 

[WC_lun]

No, but you rely on information and history that is already at your disposal. The weather channel may not get the forecast %100 correct, but the measurements for days that have already past are pretty easy to have accurate records on. Scientist are telling us that the word's weather patterns are changing and we have some responsibility for that. If a doctor told you that you had a condition it is perfectly valid to go for a 2nd opinion. If you go to 100 doctors and 98 tell you the same thing, it sounds foolish to me to ignore what the docs have told you.

 

[Sukerkin]

A very good analogy, Lun :nods:.

I do take Don's point too tho' and, as I have said myself in the past, the models of such a vast and chaotic system are not really all that accurate (they are improving as processing power gathers apace and more variables can be factored more accurately).

To my mind, given what is at stake and the fact that going 'green' is actually in our long term best interests regardless of climate, I have to say that I come down on the side of doing what we can that is economically viable without committing economic suicide.

Bear in mind that for me, 'going green' doesn't mean sackcloth and ashes and living a Neo-neolithic lifestyle . For me Green means using nuclear power to stop using gas and oil for electricity generation and, other than for entertainment ('cos you can't beat a V12 Aston Martin {http://youtu.be/NZzVVVIKDxMor} or a rumbling Camaro {http://youtu.be/f03RM5i3cDs} ), we should stop burning petrol just to move cars around - it's far too useful for other things. I also am fully in favour of a much more extensive and accelerated space programme because what we will get from that is, eventually, the resources we need to carry on having an industrial civilisation with much of the pollution outsourced to where it does no harm.

 

[Tgace]

The refusal to consider nuclear energy is one of the reasons I don't take these green wenies seriously. There is no other realistic alternative to power our society.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[billc]

We can always use pixie dust. See Sukerkin, you would make a good republican with that point of view. The problem that I and other conservatives have with these green scares is exactly that they want to stop human progress, especially in the third world, where it is needed most.

 

[billc]

And about the incredible sinking island nation called Tuvalu...not so much...

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32

"We are told that the sea level is rising and will soon swamp all of our cities. Everybody knows that the Pacific island of Tuvalu is sinking. Al Gore told us that the inhabitants are invading New Zealand because of it.

"Around 1990 it became obvious that the local tide-gauge did not agree -- there was no evidence of 'sinking.' So scientists at Flinders University, Adelaide, were asked to check whether this was true. They set up new, modern, tide-gauges in 12 Pacific islands, including Tuvalu, confident that they would show that all of them are sinking.
"Recently, the whole project was abandoned as there was no sign of a change in sea level at any of the 12 islands for the past 16 years. In 2006, Tuvalu even rose."
Other expert reviewers at the IPCC, and scientists elsewhere around the globe, share Dr. Gray's alarm at the conduct of the IPCC. An effort by academics is now underway to reform this UN organization, and have it follow established scientific norms. Dr. Gray was asked to endorse this reform effort, but he refused, saying: "The IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only 'reform' I could envisage would be its abolition."

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=1

But Tuvalu reminds me of a comic song I used to sing of Gracie Fields called "He's dead but he won't lie down". Tuvalu persistently refuses to subside .
A tide gauge to measure sea level has been in existence at Tuvalu since 1977, run by the University of Hawaii It showed a negligible increase of only 0.07 mm per year over two decades It fell three millimeters between 1995 and 1999. The complete record can still be seen on John Daly's website: http://www.john-daly.com>www.john-daly.com Obviously this could not be tolerated, so the gauge was closed in 1999 and a new, more modern tide gauge was set up by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology's National Tidal Center by Flinders University at Adelaide. But Tuvalu refuses to submit to political pressure. The sea level has actually fallen since then Tuvalu cannot be allowed to get away with it. So Greenpeace employed Dr John Hunter. a climatologist of the University of Tasmania, who obligingly "adjusted" the Tuvalu readings upwards to comply with changes in ENSO and those found for the island of Hawaii and, miraculously, he found a sea level rise of "around" 1.2 mm a year which, also miraculously, agrees with the IPCC global figure .
Since all this seems biased, or politically influenced, Dr John Church of the CSIRO at Hobart, Tasmania, a lead author of the IPCC Chapter on "Sea Level", plus his colleague Dr Neil White, have sought to reverse actual measured trends by "combining records from tide gauges from all over the world with satellite altimeter data to assess regional variation". Unsurprisingly, and equally miraculously, they reach the same conclusion as Greenpeace and the IPCC. All this has to be imposed on poor little Tuvalu to "prove" global warming.and speed emigration .
The IPCC Chapter on Sea Level is one of the more dishonest. It practices two important deceptions. First, it completely fails to mention the fact that many tide gauges are situated close to cities where the land is subsiding because of erection of heavy buildings, or removal of ground water, oil and minerals. It so happens that the island of Hawaii is one of the more heavily populated Pacific islands where the sea level is "rising" because the land is "falling" Another reason for upwards bias is Port Adelaide, Australia, where they decided to increase the water level in the harbour to allow for larger ships, They dredged and built a bar on the harbour. Unsurprisingly, the level rose on the tide-gauge. Corrections for these upwards biases in tide-gauge measurements have never been permitted to be discussed by the IPCC .

And more about the Island that isn't sinking...

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2002/07/01/island-nation-may-sue-us-over-global-warming

Australia’s National Tidal Facility (NTF), based at Flinders University in Adelaide, has installed and maintained eight sophisticated tide gauges at South Pacific sites, including Tuvalu. Since the instrumentation was installed in 1993, average sea level increase at Tuvalu has been 0.5 mm/yr, being a rate of 5 cm per century.
A similar analysis of 27 data-sets for the Pacific (longest record, 92 years at Honolulu) yields a rise of 8 cm per century. Crucially, “... visually at least, and at this stage, there is no clear evidence for an acceleration in sea level trends over the course of the last century.”

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32

 

[elder999]

[h=1]In climate landmark, Arctic ice melts to record low :[/h]

The sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has melted to its smallest point ever in a milestone that may show that worst-case forecasts on climate change are coming true, US scientists said.
The extent of ice observed on Sunday broke a record set in 2007 and will likely melt further with several weeks of summer still to come, according to data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center and the NASA space agency.
The government-backed ice center, based at the University of Colorado at Boulder, said in a statement that the decline in summer Arctic sea ice "is considered a strong signal of long-term climate warming."
The sea ice fell to 4.10 million square kilometers (1.58 million square miles), some 70,000 square kilometers (27,000 square miles) less than the earlier record charted on September 18, 2007, the center said.
Scientists said the record was all the more striking as 2007 had near perfect climate patterns for melting ice, but that the weather this year was unremarkable other than a storm in early August.

 

[granfire]

The refusal to consider nuclear energy is one of the reasons I don't take these green wenies seriously. There is no other realistic alternative to power our society.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Sorry, after Fukushima...and Chernobyl....

It's BS. The society can change to meet the supply. it always has.

naturally, in the past it has expanded it.

I believe the technology is available to power more with less.

of course, the billies of the world have to cure their rectal-cranial inversion to let it happen.

 

[elder999]

Sorry, after Fukushima...and Chernobyl....

Gotta disagree here, Gran. Chernobyl was an event that combined failed technology with sheer stupidity-really, buckets of super special Soviet stupid sauce on that one...:lfao:.....

Fukushima is a good example of underengineering-I've been saying for 20 years or more that technology like that needs to be engineered for the 10,000 year event, and not the 100 year event, since you never know which is going to happen, or when, never mind the environmental irresponsibility that is a boiling water reactor.

Nuclear power-especially the latest designs-presents a more and more manageable source of energy, with a relatively low environmental impact.