Showing All 17 Matching Links Found
Tag(s) Selected:  Greenland
Search:
:
   + Advanced Options        Search Tips        Legend
     


2/4/2011 Magnetic Polar Shifts Causing Massive Global Superstorms: Superstorms can also cause certain societies, cultures or whole countries to collapse. Others may go to war with each other.
NASA has been warning about it…scientific papers have been written about it…geologists have seen its traces in rock strata and ice core samples… Now "it" is here: an unstoppable magnetic pole shift that has sped up and is causing life-threatening havoc with the world's weather. Forget about global warming—man-made or natural—what drives planetary weather patterns is the climate and what drives the climate is the sun's magnetosphere and its electromagnetic interaction with a planet's own magnetic field. When the field shifts, when it fluctuates, when it goes into flux and begins to become unstable anything can happen. And what normally happens is that all hell breaks loose. Magnetic polar shifts have occurred many times in Earth's history. It's happening again now to every planet in the solar system including Earth. The magnetic field drives weather to a significant degree and when that field starts migrating superstorms start erupting. The superstorms have arrived The first evidence we have that the dangerous superstorm cycle has started is the devastating series of storms that pounded the UK during late 2010. (Salem News)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 2/28/11                   0       3
#1 
keywords: Aarhus University, Australia, Climate Change, DNA, Denmark, Geological Survey Of Denmark And Greenland, Greenland, Gulf Of Mexico, Mads Faurschou Knudsen, Magnetic Pole Shift, Mississippi River, National Aeronautics And Space Administration, National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration, Peter Riisager, United Kingdom, United States, X-ray Add New Keyword To Link



1/20/2011 Did The Sun Rise 2 Days Early In Greenland? Global Warming May Be Cause
Vampires aren't the only ones who worry about the sun rising. After living in complete darkness for a chunk of winter, one might think Greenland citizens would be happy to finally see sunlight. But instead, the first sight of sun sent residents of Ilulissat, a town on the western coast, into a panic, with good reason -- the sun supposedly rose two days early. According to LiveScience, Ilulissat is about three degrees north of the Arctic Circle -- where the sun doesn't set during summer solstice, and the sun doesn't rise on winter solstice. In other words, people living near this region experience winters without any sunlight. Ilulissat normally sees its first sunrise on January 13th -- this year, the sun allegedly rose on January 11th instead. (Huffington Post)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 5/15/11                   0       0
#2 



1/17/2011 Strange Claim: The Sun Rose 2 Days Early in Greenland
Residents of a town on the western coast of Greenland may have seen the sun peek over the horizon 48 hours earlier than its usual arrival on Jan. 13, sparking speculation, and disagreements, over possible causes. The town of Ilulissat sits just above the Arctic Circle, meaning its residents had been without any sunlight for a good chunk of the winter, and traditionally they'd expect to see their "first sunrise" on Jan. 13. News that the sun had peeked over the horizon on Jan. 11 appeared online in British and German-language publications and it appears to trace back to a story by the Greenland broadcasting company KNR that quotes residents who noticed the change. [Image Gallery: Sunrises and Sunsets] Of about half a dozen scientists contacted, most were unaware of the report, which was circulating on the Internet. They offered a number of hypothetical explanations, including an illusion caused by an atmospheric effect and conflicting opinions about whether global warming might be to blame for melting along the edges of Greenland's ice sheet. With less ice, Greenland's elevation may take a dip such that the sun would have less distance to travel before appearing over the horizon. (Live Science)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 5/15/11                   0       0
#3 



10/25/2010 Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues -- Why can't we have a civil conversation about climate?
In trying to understand the Judith Curry phenomenon, it is tempting to default to one of two comfortable and familiar story lines. For most of her career, Curry, who heads the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has been known for her work on hurricanes, Arctic ice dynamics and other climate-related topics. But over the past year or so she has become better known for something that annoys, even infuriates, many of her scientific colleagues. Curry has been engaging actively with the climate change skeptic community, largely by participating on outsider blogs such as Climate Audit, the Air Vent and the Black­board. Along the way, she has come to question how climatologists react to those who question the science, no matter how well established it is. Although many of the skeptics recycle critiques that have long since been disproved, others, she believes, bring up valid points—and by lumping the good with the bad, climate researchers not only miss out on a chance to improve their science, they come across to the public as haughty. “Yes, there’s a lot of crankology out there,” Curry says. “But not all of it is. If only 1 percent of it or 10 percent of what the skeptics say is right, that is time well spent because we have just been too encumbered by groupthink.” She reserves her harshest criticism for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). For most climate scientists the major reports issued by the United Nations–sponsored body every five years or so constitute the consensus on climate science. Few scientists would claim the IPCC is perfect, but Curry thinks it needs thoroughgoing reform. She accuses it of “corruption.” “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC,” she says, “because I think I don’t have confidence in the process.”

The uncertainty lies in both the data about past climate and the models that project future climate. Curry asserts that scientists haven’t adequately dealt with the uncertainty in their calculations and don’t even know with precision what’s arguably the most basic number in the field: the climate forcing from CO2—that is, the amount of warming a doubling of CO2 alone would cause without any amplifying or mitigating effects from melting ice, increased water vapor or any of a dozen other factors. Things get worse, she argues, when you try to add in those feedbacks to project likely temperature increases over the next century, because the feedbacks are rife with uncertainty as well: “There’s a whole host of unknown unknowns that we don’t even know how to quantify but that should be factored into our confidence level.” One example she cites is the “hockey stick” chart showing that current temperatures are the warmest in hundreds of years. If you are going to say that this year or that decade is the hottest, you had better have a good idea of what temperatures have actually been over those hundreds of years—and Curry, along with many skeptics, does not think we have as good a handle on that as the scientific community believes. (Scientific American)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 11/1/10                   0       19
#4 



9/30/2010 Climate change: a summary of the science
Changes in climate have significant implications for present lives, for future generations and for ecosystems on which humanity depends. Consequently, climate change has been and continues to be the subject of intensive scientific research and public debate. 2 There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation. The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty. Nevertheless, the risks associated with some of these changes are substantial. It is important that decision makers have access to climate science of the highest quality, and can take account of its findings in formulating appropriate responses. 3 In view of the ongoing public and political debates about climate change, the aim of this document is to summarise the current scientific evidence on climate change and its drivers. It lays out clearly where the science is well established, where there is wide consensus but continuing debate, and where there remains substantial uncertainty. The impacts of climate change, as distinct from the causes, are not considered here. This document draws upon recent evidence and builds on the Fourth Assessment Report of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2007, which is the most comprehensive source of climate science and its uncertainties. (The Royal Society)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 10/4/10                   0       19
#5 



9/30/2010 Royal Society issues new climate change guide that admits there are 'uncertainties' about the science
The UK’s leading scientific body has been forced to rewrite its guide on climate change and admit that it is not known how much warmer the Earth will become. The Royal Society has updated its guide after 43 of its members complained that the previous version failed to take into account the opinion of climate change sceptics. Now the new guide, called ‘Climate change: a summary of the science’, admits that there are some ‘uncertainties’ regarding the science behind climate change. And it says that it impossible to know for sure how the Earth's climate will change in the future nor what the possible effects may be. The 19-page guide says: ’It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future, but careful estimates of potential changes and associated uncertainties have been made. ‘Scientists continue to work to narrow these areas of uncertainty. Uncertainty can work both ways, since the changes and their impacts may be either smaller or larger than those projected.’ (UK Daily Mail)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 10/4/10                   0       17
#6 



2/7/2010 How Met Office blocked questions on its own man's role in 'hockey stick' climate row
Documents obtained by The Mail on Sunday reveal that the Met Office’s stonewalling was part of a co-ordinated, legally questionable strategy by climate change academics linked with the IPCC to block access to outsiders. (UK Daily Mail)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 2/19/10                   0       4
#7 



1/1/2010 CO2 lags temperature
what does it mean?

Over the last half million years, our climate has experienced long ice ages regularly punctuated by brief warm periods called interglacials. Atmospheric carbon dioxide closely matches the cycle, increasing by around 80 to 100 parts per million as Antarctic temperatures warm up to 10°C. However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags temperature by around 1000 years. While this result was predicted two decades ago (Lorius 1990), it still surprises and confuses many. Does warming cause CO2 rise or the other way around? In actuality, the answer is both.

To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things: * Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles * CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone * CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet

I would be surprised if ice core records were of sufficient resolution back in 1989 to clarify CO2 was lagging temperature

it's only been more recent ice core records that have been of high enough resolution to clarify the CO2 lag. (Skeptical Science)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 7/3/10                   0       6
#8 



7/15/2009 Greenpeace Leader Admits Arctic Ice Exaggeration (BBC)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 8/27/09      
            		 0       10
#9 



7/15/2009 Urgent action needed as Arctic ice melts
Arctic ice is melting at an unprecedented rate. As scientists on board the Arctic Sunrise gather more data showing the urgency of the situation, world leaders stay inactive (Greenpeace)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 8/27/09                   0       11
#10 



6/29/2009 Global Warming Is a Fraud
The Obama report refers to – six times – the work of a climate scientist named Stephen H. Schneider. In 1989, Schneider told Discover magazine that "we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have." (Lew Rockwell)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 6/29/09                   2       16
#11 



6/29/2009 Sen. Inhofe Calls for Inquiry Into 'Suppressed' Climate Change Report
Republicans are raising questions about why the EPA apparently dismissed an analyst's report questioning the science behind global warming (FOX)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 7/1/09                   0       11
#12 



11/8/2008 Obama vows to go ahead with missile shield: Polish president
told Polish President Lech Kaczynski he will go ahead with plans to build a missile defence shield in eastern Europe despite threats from Russia (Agence France-Presse)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 6/5/09                   2       26
#13 



3/19/2008 The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat
Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message (National Public Radio)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 6/17/09                   6       18
#14 



10/9/2007 Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s 'An Inconvenient Truth'
The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children. (News Busters)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 7/17/09                   0       10
#15 



6/16/2006 An Inconvenient Truth
Gore as climate exaggerator

Gore claims to be presenting the "scientific consensus" on global warming. But is that so? (Reason)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 7/17/09                   0       11
#16 



7/18/2004 The truth about global warming -- it's the Sun that's to blame
Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

Dr Bill Burrows, a climatologist and a member of the Royal Meteorological Society, welcomed Dr Solanki's research. "While the established view remains that the sun cannot be responsible for all the climate changes we have seen in the past 50 years or so, this study is certainly significant," he said. "It shows that there is enough happening on the solar front to merit further research. Perhaps we are devoting too many resources to correcting human effects on the climate without being sure that we are the major contributor." Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun did have an effect on global warming. He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase. This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors involved in climate change", he said. Dr Gareth Jones, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said that Dr Solanki's findings were inconclusive because the study had not incorporated other potential climate change factors. A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes. Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures. "The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently

in the last 100 to 150 years." Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact. Average global temperatures have increased by about 0.2 deg Celsius over the past 20 years and are widely believed to be responsible for new extremes in weather patterns. After pressure from environmentalists, politicians agreed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, promising to limit greenhouse gas emissions between 2008 and 2012. Britain ratified the protocol in 2002 and said it would cut emissions by 12.5 per cent from 1990 levels. Globally, 1997, 1998 and 2002 were the hottest years since worldwide weather records were first collated in 1860. (London Telegraph)
+ Show URL
 & ALL Tags
posted: 5/19/09                   5       26
#17 
keywords: Bill Burrows, Carbon Dioxide, Climate Change, David Bellamy, David Viner, Gareth Jones, Germany, Gottingen, Greenhouse Gases, Greenland, Kyoto Protocol, Max Planck Institute For Solar System Research, Royal Meteorological Society, Sami Solanki, Sun, Switzerland, UK Met Office, United Kingdom, University Of East Anglia Add New Keyword To Link




Showing All 17 Matching Links Found