Study: Human Impact on Climate Now Clearer

(CBS/AP)  British climatologists say the evidence is increasing that human actions are causing the Earth's climate to grow warmer.

The Met, Britain's national weather service, says a new review of 110 research papers written and researched during the last three years shows "evidence has strengthened for human influence on climate," according to a BBC news report.

Scientists say the research shows greater evidence for human impact on the climate now than the data available when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its much-maligned report in 2007, warning of "unequivocal" proof of warming.

The IPCC study was dismissed by climate change skeptics and lost considerable credibility in the public's eye thanks to the questionable practices of the scientists involved. Rather than becoming a benchmark in the environmental lobby's progress toward convincing the world of man's bearing on the climate, the study was instead immortalized as the spark which ignited the ensuing "Climate-Gate" scandal.

What makes the new review by The Met more credible, according to its authors, is the broad view it takes of the world's weather and eco-systems.

"We hadn't [until now] looked in detail at how the climate system was changing," Dr. Peter Stott told the BBC.

"[Our paper looks at] not just the temperatures but also the reducing Arctic sea ice and it includes changing rainfall patterns and it includes the fact that the atmosphere is getting more humid.

"And all these different aspects of the climate system are adding up to a picture of the effects of a human influence on our climate."

Scott insists the new study, which began about a year ago, was not simply an effort by the scientific community to rebuff climate change naysayers who were hugely emboldened by Climate-Gate.

"I think it's important to communicate to people what the science is showing and that's why I'm talking about this paper," Scott told the BBC.

Meanwhile, separate research has revealed Methane as a possible greater threat to the Earth's delicate environment than previously thought.

A potent global warming gas, methane is bubbling out of the frozen Arctic faster than had been expected.

Methane had become trapped in the permafrost over time and a warming climate is now resulting in its release, researchers report in Friday's edition of the journal Science.

"The amount of methane currently coming out of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf is comparable to the amount coming out of the entire world's oceans," said Natalia Shakhova, of the University of Alaska Fairbanks International Arctic Research Center and the co-author.

Concerns about global warming have centered on rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but scientists note that methane can be 30 times more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide.

Historically, methane concentrations in the world's atmosphere have ranged between 0.3 and 0.4 parts per million in cool periods to 0.6 to 0.7 in warm periods. Current methane concentrations in the Arctic average about 1.85 parts per million, the scientists said, the highest in 400,000 years.

[lakota2012]

by bugwhips:
"Is this another one of those just believe us don't ask for proof studies?"
--------------------



Sorry, but you're just another uneducated denialist, using BLOGS and conspiracy theorist websites to get your scientific "facts."

You've wasted enough of my time with your ranting and wailing, and obviously you are intimidated by intelligent and educated people.


Growing low-oxygen zones in oceans worry scientists

"The depletion of oxygen levels in all three oceans is striking," said Gregory Johnson, an oceanographer with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Seattle.

In some spots, such as off the Southern California coast, oxygen levels have dropped roughly 20 percent over the past 25 years. Elsewhere, scientists say, oxygen levels might have declined by one-third over 50 years.

"The real surprise is how this has become the new norm," said Jack Barth, an oceanography professor at Oregon State University. "We are seeing it year after year."

Barth and others say the changes are consistent with current climate-change models. Previous studies have found that the oceans are becoming more acidic as they absorb more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

"If the Earth continues to warm, the expectation is we will have lower and lower oxygen levels," said Francis Chan, a marine researcher at Oregon State.

"It's a large disturbance in the ecosystem that could have huge biological changes," said Steve Bograd, an oceanographer at NOAA's Southwest Fisheries Science Center in Southern California.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/07/89918/growing-low-oxygen-zones-in-oceans.html

--------------------------

For your information, that's 3 more real scientists, not bloggers!

Dr. Gregory Johnson, an oceanographer with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Seattle.

Dr. Jack Barth, an oceanography professor at Oregon State University

Dr. Francis Chan, a marine researcher at Oregon State.

http://oceanandair.coas.oregonstate.edu/index.cfm?fuseaction=content.display&pageID=139

[bugwhips]

Umm this whole "Article" is not science, but alarmist claims How do I know? Well in every system there would be places that gain and places that lose they only report local spots. So is the reduction due to oceanic current changes or what?

As far as AGW there is no link so this is a complete red herring, once the red herrings come out that means I win!!!

BTW you should check out your scientists because Mann is umder investigation for Fraud, Gavin is named in two Suits one at NASA and one at realclimte.

Stefan Rahmstorf well he has at least two papers that say GW is a natural cycle etc...:
Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model (Nature 438, 208-211, 10 November 2005) - Holger Braun, Marcus Christl, Stefan Rahmstorf, Andrey Ganopolski, Augusto Mangini, Claudia Kubatzki, Kurt Roth, Bernd Kromet


"Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 30, no. 10, 2003) - Stefan Rahmstorf"

Imagine that one of your scientists is a skeptic, well until he started be paid by a PR firm.

[lakota2012]

YOU sure harbor quite a bit of anger and hostility along with your ignorance, or is it just a hatred of http://www.realclimate.org/
and everyone associated with it?
-----------------------------



by bugwhips:
We'll there's your problem you get your science from realclimate.
--------------------------




No, I had never been to that site before today, but thought I'd research it a bit to see what you're so scared about, since you get your scientific "facts" from all those conspiracy theory BLOGS!

RealClimate Real Scientists:

Gavin Schmidt; is a climatologist and climate modeler at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). He works on the variability of the ocean circulation and climate and how changes related to varying forcings relate to variations due to intrinsic (unforced) climate variability, using general circulation models (GCMs). He has also worked on ways to reconcile paleo-data with models. He has helped develop the GISS ocean and coupled GCMs to improve the representation of the present day climate while investigating their response to external forcing. The latest GISS GCM is called ModelE.

He was educated at Corsham Comprehensive School, earned a BA (Hons) in Mathematics at Jesus College, Oxford University, and attained a PhD in Applied Mathematics at University College London.

In November 2004 he was named as one of Scientific American's "Top 50 Research Leaders" for the year.

--------------

Michael Mann; Dr. Michael E. Mann received his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Applied Math from the University of California at Berkeley, an M.S. degree in Physics from Yale University, and a Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale University. He was a Lead Author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment Report, and has served as chair for the National Academy of Sciences 'Frontiers of Science'. He has received the outstanding publication award from NOAA, and in 2002 was selected as one of the 50 leading visionaries in science and technology by Scientific American. He is author of more than 120 peer-reviewed and edited publications, and recently co-authored the book ?Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming? with colleague Lee Kump. He is also a co-founder and avid contributor to the award-winning science website ?RealClimate.org?.

----------------

Raymond S. Bradley; did his graduate work at the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder. His research interests are in climatology and paleoclimatology, with a particular focus on the Holocene (the last 12,000 years). He has written or edited eleven books on climatic change, and authored more than 120 articles on the topic. His main field research area is in the Canadian High Arctic. He is a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, the Arctic Institute of North America and the Royal Meteorological Society. In 2003, he received a D.Sc from Southampton University, England for his contributions to paleoclimatology. Ray Bradley has been an advisor to various government and international agencies, including the U.S., Swiss, Swedish, German and U.K. National Science Foundations, The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Research Council, the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the US-Russia Working Group on Environmental Protection, and the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program (IGBP). He was particularly active in PAGES -- the IGBP program on "Past Global Changes", where he chaired the Scientific Steering Committee.

-----------------

Stefan Rahmstorf; is a German oceanographer and climatologist. Since 2000, he has been a Professor of Physics of the Oceans at Potsdam University. He received his Ph.D. in oceanography from Victoria University of Wellington (1990). His work focuses on the role of ocean currents in climate change.

He was one of the lead authors of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

-----------------------------------------



GEEZ....I see why you're so intimidated by the REAL scientists at RealClimate, since they're all very educated and intelligent CLIMATOLOGISTS with DOCTORATES!

Sorry, your religious DENIALIST BLOGS and conspiracy theory webpages written by non-scientists, are the real JUNK SCIENCE, and I thank you for pointing out a webpage written by true paleoclimatologists!

[bugwhips]

Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics (CRU 39)

The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics. It has a worldwide membership of over 36,000 and is a leading communicator of physics-related science to all audiences, from specialists through to government and the general public. Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in scientific publishing and the electronic dissemination of physics.

"What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?



1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.



2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.



3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:



? those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and

? historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of 'proxies', for example, tree-rings.



4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.



5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.



6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the

e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific 'self correction', which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.



7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.



8. As a step towards restoring confidence in the scientific process and to provide greater transparency in future, the editorial boards of scientific journals should work towards setting down requirements for open electronic data archiving by authors, to coincide with publication. Expert input (from journal boards) would be needed to determine the category of data that would be archived. Much 'raw' data requires calibration and processing through interpretive codes at various levels.



9. Where the nature of the study precludes direct replication by experiment, as in the case of time-dependent field measurements, it is important that the requirements include access to all the original raw data and its provenance, together with the criteria used for, and effects of, any subsequent selections, omissions or adjustments. The details of any statistical procedures, necessary for the independent testing and replication, should also be included. In parallel, consideration should be given to the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to computer modelling."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm

[bugwhips]

by lakota2012 March 8, 2010 1:23 PM EST
by bugwhips:
""The MET" wrong again"
--------------------



Hey buggy.........PROOF.....PROOF....I asked you for PROOF, not prolific political rhetoric or Google searches much done like "push polling" to get a specific answer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well proof is what they forgot to give, in other words some organization who says "evidence has strengthened for human influence on climate," but offers only we reviewed old papers but offers nothing needs no proof to the contrary, but I will add this to can find every news organization in Briton lampooning "The MET"

I like this quote from them "Beyond five days precise details are difficult. The further you go ahead, the more unreliable it becomes."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rod_liddle/article6543790.ece


"The Met Office has been criticised for failing to predict in its seasonal forecasts the UK would suffer this cold winter or the last three wet summers.

After being rapped for its now notorious "barbecue summer" press release, the winter forecast was expressed in probabilistic terms, with a 66% likelihood that the winter would be warmer than average and a one in seven chance that it would be colder.

The Met Office has now admitted to BBC News that its annual global mean forecast predicted temperatures higher than actual temperatures for nine years out of the last 10."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8462890.stm

"The misery of heavy showers, cooling winds and cloudy skies has dampened expectations that Britain could finally experience the sort of summer it had enjoyed a few years ago before the last two consecutive summers of wetter-than-normal weather. The Met Office's seasonal prediction in April did much to heighten expectations after the last two years of miserable summers. "

"It said that the coming summer is "odds on for a barbecue summer" and that temperatures are likely to be warmer than average and rainfall near or below average for the three months of summer. It predicted times when temperatures would soar above 30C, and although it did not rule out the chance of seeing heavy downpours "at times", it said that a repeat of the wet summers of 2007 and 2008 is unlikely. "
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-big-question-why-did-the-met-office-get-it-so-wrong-1764529.html

"Met Office to stop issuing 'less accurate' seasonal forecasts"

The Met Office will stop issuing seasonal forecasts - as it keeps getting them hopelessly wrong.

Weathermen instead confessed they could accurately predict no more than a few days at a time - but blamed their shortcomings on Britain's location.

The humiliating admission follows the Met Office being caught unawares the current winter was the worst in 30 years.

It also blundered by promising a barbecue summer last year, which ended up being a wash out.

Weathermen have now failed to foresee rainy summers three years in a row. However, a Met Office spokesman said: "Beyond five days precise details are difficult. The further you go ahead, the more unreliable it becomes."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/03/06/met-office-to-stop-issuing-less-accurate-seasonal-forecasts-115875-22089294/

Maybe the British weather department should work on their forecasts before they try to tackle something 100 years out.

[lakota2012]

buggy:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/
----------------------------



Sorry, I don't want any of your BLOGS or COMMENTS you try to use for scientific fact!......still waiting for your PROOF......still waiting!

[bugwhips]

You have been given ample PROOF.

This must be you in the cartoon.

http://blog.cagle.com/2010/03/03/global-warming-denialist/

[bugwhips]

YOU sure harbor quite a bit of anger and hostility along with your ignorance, or is it just a hatred of http://www.realclimate.org/
and everyone associated with it?


We'll there's your problem you get your science from realclimate.
Run by Environmental media services.

"If you?ve ever been advised to steer clear of a food, beverage, or other consumer product based on the claims of a nonprofit organization, you?ve likely been ?spun? by Fenton?s multi-million-dollar message machine -- and Environmental Media Services (EMS) has probably been the messenger.
EMS is the communications arm of leftist public relations firm Fenton Communications. Based in Washington, in the same office suite as Fenton, EMS claims to be ?providing journalists with the most current information on environmental issues.? A more accurate assessment might be that it spoon-feeds the news media sensationalized stories, based on questionable science, and featuring activist ?experts,? all designed to promote and enrich David Fenton?s paying clients, and build credibility for the nonprofit ones. It?s a clever racket, and EMS & Fenton have been running it since 1994."

http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/110-environmental-media-services


You know one of those companies that prey on the gullible.

[lakota2012]

buggy:
"We'll there's your problem you get your science from realclimate."
-------------------------



Nah....that's just a very bad ASSUMPTION on your part, and only came upon those real scientists associated with RealClimate, when I was researching your hatred against William Connelley, PhD.

How come you're WRONG 100% of the time, but just never stop while you're so far behind?

Must be all those conspiracy theory sites you get your "facts" from, or maybe now this "consumer freedom" or "activist cash dot com."

[bugwhips]

Yawn

Here you go this is how we see you et.al.

http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/

[lakota2012]

Hey buggy -- looks like NOAA is in on this latest conspiracy theory:


Growing low-oxygen zones in oceans worry scientists

By Les Blumenthal, McClatchy Newspapers ? Sun Mar 7, 12:01 pm ET

WASHINGTON -- Lower levels of oxygen in the Earth's oceans, particularly off the United States' Pacific Northwest coast, could be another sign of fundamental changes linked to global climate change, scientists say.

They warn that the oceans' complex undersea ecosystems and fragile food chains could be disrupted.

In some spots off Washington state and Oregon , the almost complete absence of oxygen has left piles of Dungeness crab carcasses littering the ocean floor, killed off 25-year-old sea stars, crippled colonies of sea anemones and produced mats of potentially noxious bacteria that thrive in such conditions.

Areas of hypoxia, or low oxygen, have long existed in the deep ocean. These areas ? in the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian oceans ? appear to be spreading, however, covering more square miles, creeping toward the surface and in some places, such as the Pacific Northwest , encroaching on the continental shelf within sight of the coastline.

"The depletion of oxygen levels in all three oceans is striking," said Gregory Johnson , an oceanographer with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Seattle

[bugwhips]

Yawn Just statement no science?

Is this another one of those just believe us don't ask for proof studies?

[lakota2012]

Hey buggy -- you don't have to hate RealClimate any longer, since it appears that your friend William Connolley, PhD, has not been a contributor to that site since 2007.

RealClimate is a commentary site (blog) on climatology. The site's contributors are a group of climate scientists whose goal is to provide a quick response to developing stories and providing the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion is intended to be restricted to scientific topics and to avoid political or economic implications of the science.

The members of RealClimate are:

Gavin Schmidt
Michael E. Mann
Eric Steig
Raymond S. Bradley
Stefan Rahmstorf
Rasmus Benestad
Caspar Ammann
Thibault de Garidel
David Archer
Raymond Pierrehumbert

Earlier members:

William M. Connolley up to 2007.

[bugwhips]

"Wikipedia Fires Crazy Left-wing Climate Editor

More on Wikipedia and Connolley ? he?s been canned as a Wiki administrator

Wikipedia announced that it has fired its long time climate editor William Connolley, . Connolley,a software engineer and host at RealClimate, a left- wing AGW site that relentlessly punishes AGW skeptics and lavishly praises alarmists, has been found to have changed over 5,000 Wikipedia articles to promote AGW catastrophic speculation.

He has been observed altering history, most prominetly by removing the Medieval Warming Period. But he also has been found to have described the careers and accomplishments of AGW skeptics in the most unflattering way."

[lakota2012]

Yeah...yeah...yeah...blah...blah...blah...more political rhetoric. Which one of the following conspiracy theory sites did you get that from, since you never gave any credit to your stolen propaganda?

http://snardfarker.ning.com/profiles/blogs/wikipedia-fires-crazy-leftwing
http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2009/12/wikipedia-agw-bias-wiki-censor-william-connolley-axed/
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1424/Wikipedia_Fires_Crazy_Left-wing_Climate_Editor.html
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message950636/pg2



YOU sure harbor quite a bit of anger and hostility along with your ignorance, or is it just a hatred of http://www.realclimate.org/
and everyone associated with it?

[bugwhips]

The argument: "Every single scientific organization and agency supports the factual basis of AGW."
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm where have I heard that before oh yeah every "Major" scientific organization believed the world was flat,

every "Major" scientific organization believed that the universe circled the earth,

every "Major" scientific organization believed that if you got syphilis you would get the bubonic plague.....Fast forward few hundred years............

every "Major" scientific organization believed that mars canyons were made by creature on mars,

every "Major" scientific organization believed that race played a major role in intelligence and of course Europeans led the pack (See "Mismeasure of Man"-Stephen Jay Gould who explained in detail how 19th and early 20th century predisposed biases knowingly and unknowingly distort science and others built on those distortions which led to unfounded prejudices) (My favorite),

every "Major" scientific organization believed ulcers were caused by excess acid,

every "Major" scientific organization believed the world was cooling..............,


I added Major" because I find that when debating with the faithful if you present one that disagrees they try to point out well that's not a "Major" scientific organization.

More here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tim_Starling/List_of_crackpot_theories

More

It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time

The Osher Lifelong Learning Institute at Berkshire Community College in Massachusetts recently offered members this interesting class, with the following topics:

The Steady State Theory of the Universe: How did the universe come to be? The Steady State theory, also known as continuous creation, asserted that the universe, through expanding, has no beginning and no end. The discovery of cosmic background radiation in 1965 led most cosmologists to accept the rival theory of the big Bang.

Lamarkism : Is the giraffe?s long neck the result of continuous stretching to reach higher for food? Are traits we practice inheritable? These ideas formed the basis of Lamark's theory to explain the development of species. Darwin also believed this was possible. Participants examined how the ideas of evolution evolved.

Spontaneous Generation: Can mice be created by placing sweaty underwear and wheat husks in an open jar? Or do maggots develop from the by-products of meat rotting? Scientists have attempted to disprove spontaneous generation since the mid-1600's. Louis Pasteur finally settled the long dispute with his gooseneck experiment.

The Aether : In the 19th century, it was believed that an invisible material called the aether had to be present in the universe to support the propagation of light. Later experiments by Michelson/Morley and the Theory of Relativity put forth by Albert Einstein showed that the aether was not needed or present.

Medical Fallacies: For over 2,000 years, infection was thought to be due to "vapors," "miasmas" or the work of malign groups of outsiders. The work of Pasteur and Koch in the 19th century put the theory of infection disease on a solid footing.

[lakota2012]

Climate change and human influence
5 March 2010

A Met Office review of the latest climate research confirms our planet is changing rapidly and man-made greenhouse gas emissions are very likely to be the cause. Long-term changes in our climate system have been observed across the globe, from shifts in rainfall patterns to a decline in Arctic sea-ice. The changes follow the pattern of expected climate change and bear the ?fingerprint? of human influence, providing the clearest evidence yet that human activity is impacting our climate.

The review studies developments in climate science since the last IPCC report (AR4) was published in 2007. Sophisticated ?detection and attribution? methods have been used to identify long-term changes in our climate and then consider:

whether they are being caused by natural variability ? such as changes in energy from the sun, volcanic eruptions, or natural cycles such as El Ni?o?
and, if not, is there evidence that human activity could be to blame?
Conclusions show the climate system is changing in a number of ways which follow the pattern of climate change predicted by computer models. The only plausible explanation is that changes are happening as a result of human activity, including man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

Peter Stott, Head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution at the Met Office, said: ?Recent advances in observational data and the way it is analysed give us a better insight into the climate system than ever before. This has allowed us to identify changes in our climate and disentangle natural variability from the results.

?The science reveals a consistent picture of global change that clearly bears the fingerprint of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. This shows the evidence of climate change has gone beyond temperature increases ? it is now visible across our climate system and all regions of the planet. Our climate is changing now and it?s very likely human activity is to blame.?

There is also some evidence that changes in rainfall patterns could be happening faster than expected. More work is needed to understand why and whether this implies future changes in rainfall could be greater than models predict.

Some of the observed changes covered in the review of climate science:

Temperature increase -- global temperatures have increased by about 0.75 ?C over the past century and 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record. Human influence has been detected on every continent.

Changes in rainfall patterns -- wetter regions of the world (mid to high latitudes in the northern hemisphere and tropical regions) are generally getting increasing rainfall, and drier regions less rainfall.

Humidity -- surface and satellite observations show moisture in the atmosphere has increased over the last 20-30 years. This increases the amount of water that can fall in extreme rainfall, posing flooding risks.

Warming oceans -- temperature increases have been observed over the last 50 years in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Ocean basins. These cannot be attributed to changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions or variations in ocean currents, such as El Ni?o.

Salinity -- the Atlantic Ocean is becoming saltier in sub-tropical latitudes. This is because of increasing ocean evaporation due to increased temperatures. In the long-term, ocean regions at higher latitudes are expected to become less salty due to melting of glaciers, ice sheets and increased rainfall.

Sea-ice -- summer minimum of Arctic sea-ice is declining at a rate of 600,000 km? per decade, an area approximately the size of Madagascar. While there has been variation from year to year, a long-term trend has been observed that can only be explained by human influences.

Antarctic -- there has been a small increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since the satellite record began in 1978. This small change is consistent with the combined effects of greenhouse gas increases and reductions in the ozone layer which cause increases in some regions, such as the Ross Sea, and decreases in others, such as the Amundsen-Bellingshausen Sea.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2010/pr20100305.html

[bugwhips]

""The MET" wrong again"

Results 1 - 10 of about 46,200 for "The MET" wrong again.

[lakota2012]

by bugwhips:
""The MET" wrong again"
--------------------



Hey buggy.........PROOF.....PROOF....I asked you for PROOF, not prolific political rhetoric or Google searches much done like "push polling" to get a specific answer.

Your silly push poll pales in comparison to "bush lies to congress"
Google: Results 1-10 of about 7,980,000

[lakota2012]

bugwhips,
Not only are your personal attacks here on other posters juvenile, but your incessant ad hominem personal attacks on William Connolley from info you got from conspiracy theory BLOGS is just beyond belief.

William Connolley holds an undergraduate degree in mathematics and a DPhil from the University of Oxford for his work on numerical analysis. His main research work focused on sea ice measurement and modelling, and global climate models (GCM) such as HadCM3. Connolley also worked on the validation of SSMI data against more direct upward looking sonar observations in the Weddell Sea area. Connolley has authored and co-authored articles and literature reviews in the field of climatological research, including several concluding that a majority of scientific papers in the 1970s actually predicted warming, not global cooling. (this is why you have such an obsession to denigrate him) Connolley's Wikipedia editing was also discussed in a July 2006 article in The New Yorker that said he briefly became "a victim of an edit war over the entry on global warming", in which a skeptic repeatedly "watered down" the article's explanation of the greenhouse effect.
-----------------------------




by bugwhips:
"Instead of facts lakota2012 for example substituted the real papers author Connolleys real credentials for trumped up ones he pulled from the air."
----------------------------





Hey buggy....where's your PROOF instead of slanderous and libelous attacks on Dr. Connolley? I gave you his credentials, and apparently his intelligence on many subjects intimidates you to no end!

You're a waste of everyone's time here, and then use conspiracy theory BLOGS for your "facts" in order to attack others! Here's his biography: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/William_Connolley and a list of his publications, so please provide PROOF from other than your BLOGS that this is not true, or we'll just see your need to make more libelous attacks against the "dirty hippy" as you said.

Publications

W. M. Connolley and S. A. Harangozo, A comparison of five numerical weather prediction analysis climatologies in southern high latitudes, J. Climate, v14, 1 January 2001, pp 30?44.
Turner, J, W Connolley, D Cresswell and S A Harangozo (2001). The simulation of Antarctic sea ice in the Hadley Centre climate model (HadCM3). Ann. Glaciol., 33, 585-591.
Vaughan, D.G., G.J. Marshall, W.M. Connolley, J.C. King and R. Mulvaney. 2001. Climate change - devil in the detail. Science, 293, 1777-1779. Abstract: 7 September 2001
Tom A. Lachlan-Cope, William M. Connolley, and John Turner, The Role of the Non-Axisymmetric Antarctic Orography in Forcing the Observed Pattern of Variability of the Antarctic Climate, Geophysical Research Letters, 2001, v28 no 21, pp 4111?4114.
Connolley, W. M., 2002, Long-term variation of the Antarctic Circumpolar Wave, Connolley, W. M., doi:10.1029/2000JC000380, JGR 108(C4)
J. Turner, S. A. Harangozo, J. C. King, W. Connolley, T. Lachlan-Cope, and G. J. Marshall. 2003. An exceptional winter sea ice retreat/advance in the Bellingshausen Sea, Antarctica. Atmos. Ocean 41 (2) 2003, 171-185.
D. G. Vaughan, G. J. Marshall, W. M. Connolley, C. L. Parkinson, R. Mulvaney, D. A. Hodgson, J. C. King, C. J. Pudsey, and J. Turner. Recent rapid regional climate warming on the Antarctic Peninsula. Climatic Change, 60 (3): 243-274 October 2003
Translation of Fourier 1827: MEMOIRE sur les temperatures du globe terrestre et des espaces planetaires http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/fourier_1827/
Connolley, W.M., J.M. Gregory, E. Hunke and A.J. Mclaren (2004), On The Consistent Scaling Of Terms In The Sea - Ice Dynamics Equation, J . Phys . Oceangr. 34 (7): 1776-1780 July 2004
Marshall, G.J., P.A. Stott, J. Turner, W.M. Connolley, J.C. King and T.A. Lachlancope (2004), Causes Of Exceptional Atmospheric Circulation Changes In The Southern Hemisphere, Geophys. Res. Lett. 31(14): Art . No. L14205 July 30 2004
J. C. King, J. Turner, G. J. Marshall, W. M. Connolley, and T. A. Lachlan-Cope. Antarctic Peninsula climate variability and its causes as revealed by instrumental records. Antarctic Research Series v79, pp17?30.
Connolley, W. M. Sea ice concentrations in the Weddell Sea: A comparison of SSM/I, ULS, and GCM data. GRL 32 (7): art. no. L07501 2 April 2005; see also Sea ice: What I do in my spare time for a popular exposition

[bugwhips]

Here is a simple task for you, Google those papers and find out who used them and why. For being a prolific writer his papers are among the most unread, unreferenced papers on the topic.

More useless garbage from the left, if this is what "Oxford" put's out it's not much of a recommendation. Also do you notice his education jumps from BS to PhD what ever happened to 'Masters" sure smells to me, you know one of those honorary degrees they pass out like candy.

[bugwhips]

Here's another supporter of modern "Book Burners". A closed shallow mind is a good thing to waste.