Beck, Breitbart ignore long-term trend to claim Arctic sea ice is increasing
Purporting to correct comments made by Al Gore about the impact of global warming on the North polar ice cap, both Fox News' Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart's Breitbart.tv forwarded the false suggestion that, in the past two years, Arctic ice "has returned" and "is increasing." In fact, 2008 and 2009 were the second and third lowest years on record for summertime Arctic sea ice and the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has stated that the data from the past two years are consistent with the long-term negative trend that will result in ice-free summers for the Arctic Ocean.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Attempting to correct Gore, Beck, Breitbart claim Arctic ice is increasing in size
Breitbart.tv: "Gore says arctic ice is disappearing while the scientific proof is that arctic ice is increasing." A video posted on Breitbart.tv on December 14 asserted of Arctic sea ice: "[T]he minimum in 2008 was 700,000 square kilometers more than in 2007, and the minimum this year, which was reached earlier than normal on 12 September, 2009, (meaning it got cold earlier and arctic ice began increasing sooner) ... was 1 MILLION SQUARE KILOMETERS MORE THAN IN 2007, AND 300,000 SQUARE KILOMETERS MORE THAN IN 2008!!! Al Gore says arctic ice is disappearing while the scientific proof is that arctic ice is increasing."
Beck: "[N]early all of the ice has returned." Purporting to correct Gore's "lies," Beck stated on his Fox News program, "In September of 2007, there was a 25 percent reduction in the usual minimum ice cover. This, my friend, is the truth: 25 percent. In the two years since, nearly all of the ice has returned. He must have some wrong and old data."
In fact, long-term trend of shrinking Arctic sea ice area persists
NSIDC: 2007 low-point was 39 percent lower than long-term average. Contrary to Beck's claim that "[i]n September of 2007, there was a 25 percent reduction in the usual minimum ice cover," and that "[i]n the two years since, nearly all of the ice has returned," NSIDC stated that "[a]t the end of the melt season, September 2007 sea ice was 39 percent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000." In 2008, the minimum sea ice extent was 33 percent below the long-term average. And in 2009, the minimum sea ice extent was 24 percent below the long-term average.
AP: Melting in 2008 and 2009 "ranked as the second- and third-greatest decreases on record." The Associated Press reported on December 14 that "[i]n the summer of 2007, the Arctic ice cap dwindled to a record-low minimum extent of 4.3 million square kilometers (1.7 million square miles) in September. The melting in 2008 and 2009 was not as extensive, but still ranked as the second- and third-greatest decreases on record."
NSIDC director: "[T]here's no reason to think that we're headed back to conditions seen back in the 1970s." NSIDC director and senior scientist Mike Serreze stated of the 2009 ice data: "It's nice to see a little recovery over the past couple years, but there's no reason to think that we're headed back to conditions seen back in the 1970s. We still expect to see ice-free summers sometime in the next few decades." NSIDC lead scientist Ted Scambos also said: "A lot of people are going to look at that graph of ice extent and think that we've turned the corner on climate change. But the underlying conditions are still very worrisome." On September 17, NSIDC reported the 2009 minimum Arctic sea ice extent and stated, "While this year's minimum extent is above the record and near-record minimums of the last two years, it further reinforces the strong negative trend in summertime ice extent observed over the past thirty years." According to NSIDC: "[I]ce extent has shown a dramatic overall decline over the past thirty years. During this time, ice extent has declined at a rate of 11.2 percent per decade during September (relative to the 1979 to 2000 average)."
From an October 6 NSDIC analysis:
Scientists also concerned about thinness of the Arctic ice
NASA: Arctic sea ice "thinned dramatically" between 2004 and 2008. In July, scientists from NASA and the University of Washington in Seattle concluded that, based on a comprehensive survey of satellite data, "overall Arctic sea ice thinned about 0.17 meters (7 inches) a year, for a total of 0.68 meters (2.2 feet) over four winters. The total area covered by the thicker, older 'multi-year' ice that has survived one or more summers shrank by 42 percent." NASA further stated, "In recent years, the amount of ice replaced in the winter has not been sufficient to offset summer ice losses. The result is more open water in summer, which then absorbs more heat, warming the ocean and further melting the ice. Between 2004 and 2008, multi-year ice cover shrank 1.54 million square kilometers (595,000 square miles) -- nearly the size of Alaska's land area."
Submarine data also show trend of sea ice thinning. On October 19, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) stated, "The recent satellite estimates were compared with the longer historical record of declassified sonar measurements from US Navy submarines (Figure S4b). Within the submarine data release area (covering ~38% of the Arctic Ocean), the overall mean winter thickness of 3.6 m in 1980 can be compared to a 1.9 m mean during the last winter of the ICESat record -- a decrease of 1.7 m in thickness. This combined submarine and satellite record shows a long-term trend of sea ice thinning over submarine and ICESat records that span three decades."
BBC: "Young, thin ice" worries scientists. On September 17, BBC reported that "[w]hat continues to have scientists worried is that a significant proportion of the cover consists of young, thin ice formed in a single winter. This is much more prone to melting than the older, thicker ice that dominated in years gone by." Indeed, in its October 6 analysis, NSIDC stated of the Arctic sea ice in 2009:
The ice cover remained thin, leaving the ice cover vulnerable to melt in coming summers. Scientists use satellites to measure ice age, a proxy for ice thickness. This year, younger (less than one year old), thinner ice, which is more vulnerable to melt, accounted for 49 percent of the ice cover at the end of summer. Second-year ice made up 32 percent, compared to 21 percent in 2007 and 9 percent in 2008 (Figure 5). Only 19 percent of the ice cover was over 2 years old, the least in the satellite record and far below the 1981-2000 average of 52 percent. Earlier this summer, NASA researcher Ron Kwok and colleagues from the University of Washington in Seattle published satellite data showing that ice thickness declined by 0.68 meters (2.2 feet) between 2004 and 2008.
NSIDC Scientist Walt Meier said, "We've preserved a fair amount of first-year ice and second-year ice after this summer compared to the past couple of years. If this ice remains in the Arctic through the winter, it will thicken, which gives some hope of stabilizing the ice cover over the next few years. However, the ice is still much younger and thinner than it was in the 1980s, leaving it vulnerable to melt during the summer."
Meier: "Most people would agree it is not a matter of if we lose the summer sea ice but when." The Telegraph reported on April 7 that Walt Meier, research scientist at NSIDC, "said thinner sea ice is less likely to survive the summer and predicted the Arctic Ocean will be effectively ice free sometime between 2020 and 2040, although it is possible it could happen as early as 2013." Meier further stated: "Most people would agree it is not a matter of if we lose the summer sea ice but when. ... Temperatures are still warming because of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect. Even if we stopped that temperatures will continue rising and we will see 'positive feedback' where the ocean absorbs more energy therefore increasing the melting effect." Predictions of when the Arctic sea will have an ice-free summer vary from "less than 10 years" to several decades into the future. On October 15, National Geographic reported that NSIDC's Mark Serreze said of the widely varying predictions, "When we lose the ice really depends on the natural variability in the system":
Dueling Dates for Arctic Ice Melt
The new data, presented by the Catlin Arctic Survey and the international conservation group WWF, support the view that the Arctic will be ice free in the summer within about 20 years.
Most of the ice melt is expected to happen within the next ten years, [sea-ice expert Peter] Wadhams said in his statement.
Serreze's group in Boulder, though, is on record saying the Arctic's summer sea ice will fully melt around 2030. Other groups have put the ice-free date as late as 2100.
Why such seemingly wild guesses?
"When we lose the ice really depends on the natural variability in the system," Serreze said.
A good example of this is the record low year of 2007. That summer saw a perfect storm of climatic conditions: warm temperatures plus wind patterns that broke apart and pushed large chunks of ice out of the Arctic.
The summers of 2008 and 2009 have seen some recovery of Arctic ice, though the long-term trend is still for shrinking ice, Serreze said.
Will the slow, steady trend be the norm? Or will another year like 2007 come along and wipe out the Arctic ice?
"These are the unknowns," Serreze said. "We simply don't know."
We here in TX also had some nice "above average" weather the last few days.
Does that nullify the deniers claims? (That's a rhetorical question.) ;-)
"Not sure where in Texas you are"
Then, look it up!
Deniers seize on localized cool spots & shout, "See! No global warming!" (They miss the word "global".)
But, when it's warmer? Crickets.
Deniers cherry-pick the data, as usual.
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138
Somehow I think we've been over this before.....
Temperatures have been going down for the last decade. I know that's not what the global warming alarmists wanted to happen, but it is true. 1998 was the hottest year of the current "warming period" (though not the hottest year in recorded history, as the alarmists claim - that was 1932). But even if 1998 was merely a "local temparature peak", it means that temperatures have not gotten that high since then. Therefore, temperatures have gone down.
Interestingly, mankind has not decreased its emissions of carbon dioxide during the last decade. In fact, the burning of fossil fuels has increased over that time, just as it has over the last 150 years.
In fact, the 2007 temperature dropped sharply from 2006, and the 2008 temperature is predicted to drop even more. The World Meteorological Organization blames this on the La Nina, and claims that as soon as the La Nina is over, temperatures will resume the "rapid increase" seen in the previous 3 decades. But for all we really know about climatology, a La Nina is the Earth's natural response to global warming, and it will continue until temperatures return to "normal", whatever that is.
But here's the kicker, whether La Nina is to blame for the current cooling or not, the fact is, none of the climate models that predict global warming predicted that a La Nina would occur in the early years of the 21st Century. So, if they can't accurately predict climate for the next 10 years, why in the world are we giving any serious consideration to things that they are predicting to occur a hundred years from now?
Averaging all of the temperatures from 2000-2009 yields a higher number than for any other decadal period in recorded history. It's not complicated mathematics.
1998 was the warmest year on record (in some temperature datasets, but not all) because of one of the strongest El Nino events on record. When adjusting the temperature data to compensate for this, we've had warmer surface temperatures since then.
Irrelevant. None of the major climate models were meant to predict the intensity, starting point, and duration of La Nina events. Even so, temperatures right up through 2009 (in each of the temperature datasets, even) continue to show values that follow the observed/predicted trend of climate-scale warming, within the data's standard deviation.
It's not that hard to understand. The temperature anomalies (amount above or below a given period average) for the years of 1990 through 1999 were: .247, .203, .070, .104, .169, .270, .138, .347, .526, and .302. That produces an average for the decade of .2376. The temperature anomalies for the years 2000 through 2008 were: .277, .406, .455, .465, .444, .475, .421, .399, and .327. That produces an average for the decade of .4077.
You see, the fact that 1998 was a spike and that the years since have been lower DOESN'T mean they have been going down. In fact, if you plug the current decade's numbers into a spreadsheet and graph them you will see a very slight upward trend in an Excel "best fit" trend line. That trend will even tip a little more upward when 2009 data is included because it is looking to be about the 5th warmest ever recorded.
And you're also wrong about 1998. It WAS the warmest year ever recorded globally. In the US, 1932 was warmer than 1998, but not globally. Remember, the US only makes up about 4% of the earth's surface.
I don't know where you got that "La Nina is the Earth's natural response to global warming" silliness, but I'd love to see your source.
There really is no need to debate this stuff. One side is being truthful, the other side is being deceitful.
ClimateGate exposed total deceit on the alarmist side. Posting all the data from sources like ClimateProgress is a waste of time. How can you assume that the data is accurate when climate models have been exposed as faulty and the data used to make these alarmist claims have been cooked?
There is no consensus, folks. I really wish you all would at least accept that instead of simply believing the alarmists like it's a religion and calling naysayers "holocaust deniers" or whatever...
Thanks for admitting your guilt freely and openly. It makes the scientist's job much easier - they can focus on the science instead of wasting time cleaning up the mess than people like you create.
What climate models have been exposed as "faulty?" What peer-reviewed scientific journal article reached this conclusion? As required by science, please cite your sources.
What data has been cooked? Who cooked the data? Again, citation of sources is required.
Just because snow fell doesn't mean it was the coldest day ever.
As "they" say in Texas, if you don't like the weather, wait 10 minutes.
But serially, local weather obviously has nothing to do with GLOBAL warming. Or cooling. Except to deniers.
Al Gore summed it up today when he said the polar ice caps would be gone by 2014, not one ounce of science to prove that, even the scientist he quoted said thats not what he said.......
Its all a scam to take more tax dollars from hard working people, while the out of work (by choice) left wing, tree huggin, Prius driving liberals use up precious resources making protest signs to march on Washington.
Get a job, get a life, sit down and have a nice Polar Bear tenderloin, they are very lean, and oh soooo tasty!!! (Almost as good as baby seal)
By David Sharp
Associated Press Writer / December 4, 2009 In Boston, the temperature hit 69 degrees, breaking the old record of 65 set in 1932. I wonder what was going on in 1932 to make is so hot, had to be the SUV's as well. Yep, has to be GW.
See, told 'ya the deniers also believe UFOs are piloted by aliens from outer space.
Now it seems they think the aliens will start attacking us with lasers.
Beck should do a chalk-board analysis of this. This may be an ACORN plot!
Please--now let's not be Martian Laser Deniers. It's open to debate...
Well, no one's ever proved there are no aliens capable of interstellar travel and who shoot lasers at ice.
So you're right. I guess I should be careful to not come off as an interstellar-laser-shooting-alien denier. ;-)
Where's the KABOOM!?
Hare-way to the Stars.
Made Up = I just came up with a number out of left field.
Neither based on fact.
You've wedded yourselves to the nonsense side of the aisle. We're not coming over to the dark side with you.
Gore talked with a climate scientist who gave him that figure, but Gore misunderstood what exactly the scientist was telling him. It was an honest mistake, just like when he meant thousands of degrees but said millions of degrees.
If you don't look at things in context, you have nothing.
And believe us - you have nothing, RightON.
And honesty is the best policy. Our side has cornered the market on that commodity, but only because your side can't win any arguments by purchasing that commodity - you succeed only with distortions and omissions. You love people who behave like mushrooms - who love to be kept in the dark.
Oh Sue, you are so full of shiitake, waiting for your next sniveling post is worth the price of admission. Never change.
Yay politicians
And I remember hearing, from those in charge at the time, that the Iraq War would actually pay for itself. How does that seem to be working out?
I wasn't here to condescend on medicare, but it's pretty clear from the number of "thumbs down" that it's NO BIG DEAL if the politicans are wrong, as long as they're wrong about something you think was a good thing anyway.
Your assertion is nonsense. An Iraq War supporter could simply say "well the war/occupation was greatly expanded from original estimates" and they would have as much credibility as you: NONE.
But yes, people can say that the Iraqi invasion did change from the initial thought. The problem with that argument is that the initial cost estimates weren't reasonable and valid. The initial estimates for Medicare were.
And me allow someone like you to hurt my feelings? Wow, you ARE REALLY a fool, aren't you?
And yes he did slam Medicare, RightON. The reason the costs have gone up is because saw what a great idea it was and expanded it multiple times, yet he whines about that increased cost two different times.
(here)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_problem
That's why you deniers keep coming to this site.
You can't get quality information from your denier sites. Those sites just keep repeating the same garbage, over and over.
http://poneke.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/nina/
Made Up = I just came up with a number out of left field.
Gee, in my dictionary it says something like:
Ballpark = Best guess figure based on the available data.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Just because you've found a new why to misquote Al Gore? That ain't going to restore those ice caps!
(Could we use SC as a source of clean energy? What the carbon footprint?)
Yeah... obviously I was exagerating. (Just like Gore? LOL)
But my point remains: That one person's claim is shown to be exagerated, does not trump the BIG PICTURE. The FACT that:
1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
2) We produce a LOT of it.
3) The oceans absorb SOME of it, but they're becoming acidic and that threatens marine life (which threatens US.)
4) Trees absorb some of it, but we keep cutting them down.
5) We are seeign the early stages of these long term, difficult to reverse, viscious cycles opf warming, starting NOW - like the consitant loss of artci sea ice from year to year.
My questions was: How long will you wait? What will it take to make it worthwhile in your mind? I would hope LESS than the admittedly ridiculous examples I listed, but hopefully ALSO a bit less that humannity being on the brink of extinction withing your lifetime as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Just sayin'
Talking about a 10 year cooling cycle, have you looked at the global temperatures chart? Your text to link here... As you can see, there is considerable variation from year to year, with temperatures fluctuating up and down. However, looking at a longer time scale, there is an undisputed trend since the early 1900s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms
All the videos from 1 to 5 will disprove everything you just said above:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&feature=related
The levels of CO2 were fairly stable for millions of years, so any other natural events would have a minor effect on global temperatures. BY increasing the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, we ourselves are going to have a large impact on the planet, more than what the planet was capable of.
And yes, there is a scientific consensus.
Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real
"The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html
We already know whats happening to the ice caps if you bothered to actually visit the links above.
And no, we don't know if polar bear populations increased because we didn't have a good track record in the last mid-century. All evidence is leading scientists to believe that their environment is causing considerable stress on their populations.
And yes, there is evidence of warming as this decade was the warmest in recorded history:
2000–2009, THE WARMEST DECADE
2009 among 5 warmest years: "Only North America (United States and Canada) experienced conditions that were cooler than average."
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_869_en.html
NOAA: 2009 Global Temperatures Well Above Average; Slightly Above-Average for U.S.
"The 2000 – 2009 decade will be the warmest on record, with its average global surface temperature about 0.96 degree F above the 20th century average. This will easily surpass the 1990s value of 0.65 degree F."
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20091208_globalstats.html
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_869_en.html
"Must-see NASA figures compare 2009 to the two hottest years on record: 2005 and 2007"
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/2009+2005+2007.pdf
http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/24/nasa-hottest-year-on-record-2009-2005-2007/
Statisticians: "Global Cooling" a Myth
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/26/tech/main5423035.shtml
"what caused the global warming since the ice age and why isn't that or similar non man made forces the continuing cause of today's climate change?"
Just quit acting like you want us to tell you. You'll just ignore it anyway.
A complete time-waster.
The denier broken record....
Yes, but what about.....?
Yes, but what about.....?
Yes, but what about.....?
Yes, but what about.....?
Go look it up yourself.
Yes, but what about.....?
Yes, but what about.....?
Reminds me of the cliche: are we there yet?
Yep. Same idea.
They're spoiled brats who don't get their way, but expect everyone to cater to them.
You tell us for once.
"what caused the global warming since the ice age and why isn't that or similar non man made forces the continuing cause of today's climate change?"
So, go ahead. Explain it.
As usual, we wait for your answer........
We don't owe deniers answers.
We aren't the experts. We don't have the answers. Big shock? Why be surprised? After all, we aren't the ones how claim the experts can't be trusted. That's your job.
If you can't trust the experts, who can you trust? Oh, that's right, Beck, Limburger, Hannity, etc. That's YOUR gang of experts.
What we DO have is over 95% of the scientists supporting ACC:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/
What we DO have is a ton of data:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/just-what-is-this-consensus-anyway/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/
http://coaps.fsu.edu/climate_center/climatechange.shtml
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12457&tid=282&cid=13366
What we DO have is this:
http://sites.google.com/site/dallastrees/potholer54-climate-change
and this
http://sites.google.com/site/dallastrees/greenman3610-climate-denial-crock-videos
And finally, we know the difference between pure baloney (which deniers feast on) and fact:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU&feature=player_embedded#
So, no one owes you anything.
You live with your own ignorance.
If you can't answer your own question, your wasting everyone's time.
Better change your moniker. You're tagged.
My last post to you. You waste everyone's time with your ignorance.
I gave you the links to answer your question. Your refusal to educate yourself just proves to everyone here that you deniers continue to ignore the facts.
You follow your own religion of denial. We'll stick to the facts.
My koolaid's just fine. You may want to double-check your's though. There's a hint of almond in it. (That would be cyanide.)
So, if you deniers are so certain you know the facts, then I supposed you all have answers to all the items listed below?
Will we ever see a response from you geniuses on this? .... crickets.......
Like I thought. It's easier to deny on the basis of cherry-picked crap, than face the facts.
Deniers are such stupid, idiotic losers.
The following list - which deniers cannot address - is taken from:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-happened-to-the-evidence-for-man-made-global-warming.html
All links to the original work can be found at that site.
* Our planet is suffering an energy imbalance and is steadily accumulating heat (Hansen 2005, Murphy 2009, Schuckmann 2009, Trenberth 2009)
* Animal and plant species are responding to earlier springs. Eg - earlier frog breeding, bird nesting, earlier flowering, earlier migration of birds and butterflies (Parmeson 2003)
* The distribution of tree lines, plants, birds, mammals, insects, fish, reptiles, marine invertebrates are shifting towards the poles (Parmeson 2003)
* Arctic permafrost is degrading (Anisimov 2006) plus warming at greater depths in the permafrost (Stieglitz 2003)
* Global sea level rise is accelerating (Church 2006)
* Antarctic ice loss is accelerating (Velicogna 2009), even from East Antarctica which was previously thought to be too stable to lose ice mass (Chen 2009)
* Greenland ice loss is accelerating (Velicogna 2009, van den Broeke et al 2009)
* Glaciers are shrinking globally at an accelerating rate (WGMS 2008)
* Arctic sea-ice loss is accelerating with the loss rate exceeding model forecasts by around a factor of 3 (Stroeve 2007).
* The height of the tropopause is increasing (Santer 2003, press release)
* Jet streams are moving poleward (Archer 2008, Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)
* The tropical belt is widening (Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)
* There is an increasing trend in record hot days versus record cold temperatures with currently twice as many record hot days than record cold temperatures (Meehle 2009, see press release).
* Humans are emitting CO2 at such rates that atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level over the past 800,000 years (Brook 2008). The rate of increase is the fastest in 22,000 years (Joos 2008)
* Satellites measure less infrared radiation escaping out to space at the wavelengths that CO2 absorb energy (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007)
* Surface measurements find more infrared radiation returning back to the Earth's surface (Philipona 2004), specifically at the wavelengths that CO2 absorb energy (Evans 2006)
* A shift towards earlier seasons (Stine 2009)
* Lake and river ice cover throughout the Northern Hemisphere are freezing later and breaking up earlier (Magnuson 2000, Hodgkins 2005)
* Changes to physical and biological systems across the globe are consistent with warming temperatures (Rosenzweig 2008)
* Cooling and contraction of the upper atmosphere consistent with predicted effects of increasing greenhouse gases (Lastovicka 2008)
* Pitcher-plant mosquitoes are genetically evolving to adapt to shifting seasons (Bradshaw 2001)
Distribution of plants are shifting to higher elevations (Lenoir 2008)
* Narcisisstic man fails to comprehend his existence relative to the universe, true intentions often seen as nefarious (Gore 2001-2009)
Again with the "global cooling hysteria of the 70's?" How many times is that moldy chestnut going to be discarded before some nanny-nanny naysayer doesn't pick it up and try to feed it to others? There was no scientific consensus on "global cooling!" Period. Even at the time, the peer-reviewed literature contained numerous papers predicting warming with by comparison a handful suggesting the opposite.
There already are explanations of "non-man made" climate change. There also are explanations of "man made" climate change resulting from, in a nutshell, pumping so-called greenhouse gases into the environment faster than the environment can deal with them. That is what we are seeing now and there is no model by which natural variations can explain the degree of warming seen over the past several decades. This is no "minor event." The world is already warmer than at any time in at least several hundred years and very likely considerably longer - and it's still warming. Oh, and don't even bother trying to throw the so-called Medieval Warm Period at me: By best current knowledge that was at most a regional event limited to parts of the northern hemisphere.
There is a scientific consensus - again, in the '70s there was already a clear majority belief among researchers (which kind of makes it hard to credit the notion advanced by some that the IPCC, founded in 1988, is behind it) - and there is no cover-up. I assume that reference is to the hacked emails, but what it really shows is the ability of your sources to take nothing, no evidence, no proof, and claim to have made a rock-solid case. (And no, again before you jump, the same is not true of global warming; the argument for that is based on literally thousands of peer-reviewed papers across a large number of disciplines.)
The Arctic ice cap is shrinking and may soon disappear altogether in summer. Period. No dispute. Some parts of Antarctica are shrinking, some are expanding. Guess what: Those changes are in accordance with climate change models.
The polar bear population increased after the '70s because of restrictions on hunting. Their numbers are now declining dramatically.
Wait to see if there's actual warming? Are you joking? The decade 2000-2009 is shaping up to be the warmest on record. It will break the record set by the decade 1990-1999. Which broke the record set by 1980-1989. See a pattern there? Even if the decade 2010-2019 proves to be less warm than 2000-2009, it would not mean there is no warming on a decadal level. Because short-term variations do not refute long-term trends! Got that?
The polar bear population increased after the '70s because of restrictions on hunting. Their numbers are now declining dramatically.
This is noticed by the Inuits and other native people. Their ancient way of life is being altered inexorably. But MarkB and others just don't care. They think this is a joke and not serious. Typical. They're the reincarnation of the people who thought that Rome would always be the super power on the earth and they could ignore reality.
Also, how much better do you think computer modeling has improved in the last 40 years? How much more data is available than 40 years ago?
Carbon dioxide is used by plants during photosynthesis to make sugars, which may either be consumed in respiration or used as the raw material to produce other organic compounds needed for plant growth and development. It is produced during respiration by plants, and by all animals, fungi and microorganisms that depend either directly or indirectly on plants for food. It is thus a major component of the carbon cycle. Carbon dioxide is generated as a by-product of the combustion of fossil fuels or the burning of vegetable matter, among other chemical processes.
1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
(its been around for 650 Million Years)
2) We produce a LOT of it.
(so does the earth, so do animals, we breath it out)
3) The oceans absorb SOME of it, but they're becoming acidic and that threatens marine life (which threatens US.)
(Thats crap, not any solid proof of that, the oceans recycle and clean and filter themselves)
4) Trees absorb some of it, but we keep cutting them down.
(Since the late 70's, we have planted 3 trees for every one cut down, our average tree coverage in the United States has increased 150%, see forrest fires in the west)
5) We are seeign the early stages of these long term, difficult to reverse, viscious cycles opf warming, starting NOW - like the consitant loss of artci sea ice from year to year.
(Ice is coming back, just like the natural cycles of the earth, remember Al Gore told us 4 years ago we would have double the hurricanes tornadoes, typhoons, etc.?????Last year we had the lowest natural disaster occurances we have had in 20 years, and the mean temp of the earth went down the last two years in a row.)
My questions was: How long will you wait? What will it take to make it worthwhile in your mind? I would hope LESS than the admittedly ridiculous examples I listed, but hopefully ALSO a bit less that humannity being on the brink of extinction withing your lifetime as well.
All I can say is get some real facts, you need to stop listening to the man who "invented the internet" !!!!!
Amp down your criticism for skeptics and accept the healthy debate. It's good for all.
But showing how one person's claim (not 'peer-reviewed' BTW!) is shown to be exagerated, does not trump the BIG PICTURE.
You say you can't dismiss it. OK... great. So... What do you want to DO about it? CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That's been known since the late 1800's. We produce a whole $#!tload of it every day. No one can deny that. It HAS an effect - this has been observed.
We SHOULD try to scale that back no? Kind of important, no?
I'll listen to anyone doing research in the appropriate field. I never saw "Inconvenient Truth" and I don't intend to. (Nor do I consider Gore/Moore to be "peer reviewed.") I don't need a politican to tell me about Science. Gore's claims, even if exagerated, were meant to spur public policy, not proove the science.
The observed trends are not promising. Everything is going in a "getting worse" direction. Why do we refuse to act just because the world won't end in our lifetimes?
------------------------------------------------------------
And SKEPTICS accpet the man-made global warming hypothesis, because SKEPTICS look to SCIENCE to answer these questions. (That's not to my blog, BTW.)
My only concern is the amount of government regulation that goes along with it. Unless far more climate abusive countries than the US jump on board, we can only do so much. But per capita the regulation and massive amount of money is on us. And therein lies the potential for fraud, abuse and thievery that is ripe when new regulation is in place, because it will be hard to criticize those operating under the lofty goal of saving the planet.
Not every problem is fixed by the government's hand in it. I am not convinced this is the way anymore than I am for health care. That is why I appreciate the healthy disagreements and the skepticism. It keeps them honest.
It's called LEADING THE WAY. If we develop the technology NOW, then we can SELL IT to the Chinese, Indians, etc... \when they finally come on baord. Otherwise, if we WAIT for them, we'll end up buying it from THEM. Is THAT what you want?
Not every problem is fixed by the government's hand in it.
The "free market" won't fix this. The path of least resistance if to keep burning $#!t. It's cheap, it's easy, and so we'll keep doing it until something breaks. That's the problem with Makret Forces, short term greed alwasy trumps long term strategy. And besides: History has shown, quoite clearly and repeatedly, that corporations will never lift a finger to clean up any amount of pollution at all unless forced to by the gov't. Without the EPA, this country would be a cess-pool. The only reason it isn't is because people got fed up way back when, and the gov't formed the EPA. And since the EPA has largely done their job, it's harder to get people to the the prblem seriously anywmore. Despitet the science, people remain complacent unless shocked into action.
skepticism is not a bad thing, it only helps to improve the message and clear out misinformation.
I'm a skeptic myself. The skeptic's dictionary is my bible. Skeptics folow science, and Science follows DATA. The claims of Al Gore are immaterial to the skeptic. And the only real "misinformation" out there is being put out by the "burning $#!t" industries, to try and protect their unsustainable practices (and profits) as long as humanly possible. It's only about their money, not science; and certainly not the public good.
And therein lies the potential for fraud, abuse and thievery that is ripe when new regulation is in place,
This is not "scepticism," it's "cynicism." Regulations are enacted to PREVENT "fraud, abuse and thievery." In absense of regulations, corporations have shown time and time again that they will eschew any concern for the public welfare to protect their own profits. They've lied, abused, polluted, injured, poisoned, defrauded and outright STOLEN time and time again. And they'll do this whenever the Gov't lets them. (It's the only rational thing to do! That's the market for you!)
--------------------------------------------------------
Why do you mistrust our elected gov't, but you show implicit trust in for-profit corporations? Your 'skepticism' should be aimed at them occasionally as well, no?
And if they dont, they won't and too hell with all those who suffer (and PAY) becasue of it.
Let me offer you an anectdote, one that shows how I think about these things...
When I got my MBA, I had a Professor, Karmalesh Kumar - brilliant man. And very much a free-market libertarian. Expressed, in class, "a near religious faith in the power of the free market to solve almost all of the problems that are out there." So... he'd be right up your alley. And despite our poiltical differences, I'll absolutley, gladly admit that he was the BEST professor I've ever had, at any level of schooling. (And 99% of the MBA class would give the same answer, if polled on who their favortie (or at least most respetced) professor was.)
Anyway... He was reading a report about that "good stewards" and "socially consious" stuff you mentioned. Some professor did a study awhle back, over a 10 year time period, tracking the stock values of 100 companies that were considered "socially consious" or "admirable" and 100 companies that were considered "socially/environmentally irrespeonsible" and were "not admired." What he found was that both group performed exactly the same.
So, as professor Kumar concluded: Despite the conventional wisdom, there was no benefit to a company to be percieved as socially responsible.
At which point I raised my hand and said, "Wait a second... If we agree that the two groups performed exactly the same, then apparently their is no DETRIMENT to doing the right thing. So if you're going to make the same amount of money either way, why not just do the right thing and BE socially responsible? Even if just to sleep better at night, or whatever?"
He was stunned for a moment, and admitted that "[He'd] never thought about it that way."
Now... I'm not telling you this to toot my own horn, but rather becasue I thinks it's illustrative of how the free-market crowd thinks. Don't get me wrong: Professor Kumar was not a BAD man - quite the opposite. In his home country of India, he had seen first hand how gov't intereference in the market caused starvation, poverty, disease and suffering and continually stifled free-market attempts to improve things over there.
He was merely being eminently rational. And, unfortunately, our economic system and prominent business models, are set up to reward certain behaviors: Meet the growth numbers, maximize the profit. And that's fine, but it can lead to short term concerns (which a liberal might call "greed" but if it's THEIR JOB on the line, they'd make the exact same decision!) trumping what's in the long term interest of either the company or society. This could be as small as putting off some scheduled maintainence on a piece of equipment, or HUGE like the long term implications of global warming.
And no ONE COMAPNY is going to lead tha way on this, especially as it WILL involve large up front investments. The MARKET doesn't care about the environment, or our quality of life. All it cares about is PRICING COMMODITIES. And as long as there's cheap $#!t to burn, we're not going to get serious about clean energy until it's either TOO LATE, or the Gov't forces the issue.
The MARKET only responds. It doesn't plan. WE plan. And we need to plan around MORE than JUST the market.
----------------------------------------------------
Hopefully you find this post rational enough to restore some of the standing I may have lost recently by entertaining my vices and having a little fun with y'all instead. It's not ALL about the Left taking over the world! LOL
First off, that is baloney. Companies outlay large sums of money for research and development and investments all the time, because they need to in order to reap benefits and profits down the road. So that claim is bogus and without merit. Just look at pharmaceutical companies for examples of that and the millions of dollars it costs to produce new innovative drugs.
Also, who do you think is going to lay out these huge investments? Us? More money from the taxpayers funneling into government regulators and bureaucrats to lobbyists so companies can have their hand out to the federal government so they won't have to use their own money for investment but will still benefit from it, at a far lower initial cost.
Uh huh, the companies will realize that "green" is the way to go, the way to capitalize on the market, the way to engender loyal environmentally conscious customers, hell many of them already have and without the precious hands of government guiding them. They will take the necessary prudent financial commitments and be successful as a result. Not with our money, but theirs. And the planet gets greener. It's a win-win.
Wrong. When the first outbreaks of H1-N1 hit, did the big pharmaceutical companies begin researching a vaccine right away, with all those millions of research dollars? After all, the demand was clearly going to be there, right?
No, they did not. They did not begin the process until the federal government ordered them to. Then, when they were ready to begin producing the vaccine, what happened? They provided wildly optimistic estimates of how quickly it could be provided to the public. The problem? They absolutely over-estimated their old fashioned chicken egg means of producing the vaccine, and the government fell for it. There some local shortfalls in available vaccine as a result.
Again, what happened then? Well, the government, using taxpayer dollars and the public university research system, began work on a faster and more modern means of making vaccines, to prevent just this kind of thing from happening in the future. Guess what? That new process will likely be given to industry, for free, just to make sure they put it into practice so that the next new flu outbreak can be more effectively dealt with.
So, who payed for the research? Taxpayer money, that's how. The rumors of pharma spending big money on research is limited to hair loss and erectile dysfunction, and that's about it.
The best answer is simply to tax petroleum out of business. It's worked quite well with cigarettes. No amount of 'education', or limiting of commercials, or redesigning of packaging, or government scare labels had 1/10th the influence of simply hiking the taxes on tobacco. Bonus? Some of the taxes can be used to mop up the massive health costs these addictive carcinogens have passed on to us. But, in order to encourage industry and the populace to move in the right direction, it will take government pressure. Do you realize if each gallon of gasoline really paid for itself, it would cost you around $10? That's to fund all the war, and all the military, and all the ancillary costs that are currently borne by taxpayers, not gasoline users or refiners.
Had I been elected in 2008, one of the first things I would've done would be to institute a $10 per gallon federal tax on diesel and gasoline. Believe me, solutions would've exploded onto the market. All electric cars, extremely efficient cars, alternative sources of power. Money would've been poured into these areas, seeking some means around it. It's kind of a painful solution to a complex problem, a bit like ripping off a band-aid. But, on the plus side 2010 or 2011 would've been the last year we imported a single drop of foreign oil.
Oh, come on, Cat. I seriously hope you're exagerating. As a practical measure, this is farther beyond the moonbat left, as RightOn is beyond the Kool-Aid right.
(Time for me to lose soem liberal cred here. Don't know why, it's not like the con's will even notice...)
Unless YOU plan on buying me a new car, your proposal sucks, IMHO. What's more, my wages aren't likely to go up to cover the new cost of driving to work if my company's energy costs go up by a factor of five overnight. And I get 30+ MPG! I'm doing MY PART! I ain't drivin' no SUV, so you know where you can shtick your $12.50 a gallon gasoline proposal!
I'm sorry. I have to draw a line to the left of me somewhere, and I can barely SEE your proposal from where I've drawn it. LOL.
Cig's are a vice. People can live without then in both the short term and (of corse live a lot lONGER without them) in the long term. But our economy, for good or ill, RUNS on gas. Now, I want to change that as much as you do (well... not quite as much, apparently!) but I prefer more pragmatic (or at least remotely pragmatic) solutions.
We should have signed Kyoto. We should sign on in Copenhagen. We should do cap and trade... and more. We should start moving in the right direction. (Or should have started about ten years ago!) But $10/gallon tax on gas, or any other actively destructive activities are not going to help any here.
--------------------------------------------
$12.50/gallon for gas. Wow. If you'd been elected president in 2008, I'd be casing out some gassy knolls!
You mention pharmacueticals... they do research becuause they HAVE TO. That's what THEY DO. W/o new products, they go broke in 17 years. (When the patents run out and name-bands go generic - and suddenly market forces take over!) And they do a LOT of it becuase MOST drugs (~9/10, I believe?) never cut it.
But I'm talking about ENERGY. And the OIL industry is not doing any resaerch to reduce our aggregate oil usage - per capita, maybe, but populations keep growing. The coal industry isn't doing any research to reduce our aggregate coal usage. (And clean coal's a joke. Political cover, nothing more.) Natural Gas? Same deal. (Same goes for nuclear, but I'm very much PRO-nuclear in the short to medium term, so I'm not going to drag them into this at this time.) But the fact is that NONE of these HUGE industries are doing any serious research into ways to reduce the aggregate consumption or their core products.
Contrary to most liberals that are as postionate as I am, I'll generally pick the free-market solution. I only go with government when I can see and explain WHY the free market won't work, or worse, will go in the wrong direction. The big areas that I see this as applicable are health care and the enviornment / clean energy. And I've laid out my arguments there, whether you're buying them or not.
The cheapest way to get energy RIGHT NOW is burning $#!t. That's a FACT... or at least the oil & gas industries keeps touting it as one! They have made the case that Solar (Wind, Geo, etc...) is more expensive (not sure how that works, since it consumes no raw material, and you can ammortize the capital costs over however many years you want to, but...) and they lobbied the Bush administration HEAVILY to favor a coal/oil/nat gas/nuclear energy policy. Free market? Hardly.
So there is simply no reason to believe that companies will voluntarily decide to clean up accross the board... At least there's no historical precedent for this happening without gov't regulation.
----------------------------------------------
OSHA, EPA... Why do you think these exsist? Becasue Nixon wanted to squash the free market? No - he recognized where the free market was failing, and he (and congress) acted. And he just might have been the best Republican President since Roosevelt for having done so.
Here's an electric car.
So, there are those in the private sector wise enough to have foreseen $5 a gallon gas, and clever enough to raise the necessary private capital and begin working on a solution.
Contrast this with GM, who, in the late '90s, had to pick between the electric car and the Hummer. Quick profits won out, and we all know how that fiasco ended. Had they been encouraged by the government, and I mean forcefully encouraged, perhaps that decision would've gone otherwise, and they would be leading Toyota rather than trailing them. We'll never know. Point is, it would take the feds to nudge GM. Market pressure alone won't do it. They're still hedging on an all electric car.
As for $10 a gallon tax, yes, I was serious. That would drive the cost up to around $12.50, or about what Europe is currently paying or a little less. Yeah, less.
You get 30 mpg, but I'm guessing you drive to work alone, don't you? So, with gas that costly, carpool would form. Suddenly, a seven passenger vehicle that gets 25 mpg isn't such a bad idea, if it's being fully utilized to haul seven people. That's 175 people miles per gallon. At 30 mpg, if four rode in your car, that would only be 120 people miles per gallon, a clear loss. This is kind of an odd yardstick, I know, but it is based on the simple premise that vehicles are used to haul people, and is an extension of the standard mpg, which could be factored into the new system as single person mileage.
And, riding to work with your co-workers might not be paradise, but at least you could still pay your bills. Plus, with driving less, your insurance would go down, as would maintenance costs. The single vehicle you carpooled in would need a bit more maintenance, but those costs would be spread over everyone who rode along. Still a savings.
Believe me, there are unimplemented solutions like this that use existing technology, simply being utilized in different ways than they currently are.
As for the free market, so long as things are working well, I'm all for letting it be. However, the government is responsible for it's citizens, not corporate profit. And if a need arises that the free market refuses to acknowledge, plan for, or deal with, then we the people, in the guise of government regulation, need to make sure that their bad decisions don't affect us in a negative way. Lastly, I think 'too big to fail' is a horrible policy. We have anti-trust regulations that exemptions have been granted for. Those all need to be repealed. Now. Break 'em down into smaller companies, and get some competition back into the market, including a nonprofit public option health coverage plan.
As for $12.50 a gallon gas, it's coming. Just a question of when, and also if we'll be ready.
</conservative>
Your not WRONG, BTW. Juts crazy. LOL (Hey, so am I - You're in good comapany!)
Actually, I'm sure the market WILL solve the problem of transportation via the electric car long before gas reaches $12.50 a gallon. The big three were Bachmann-Stupid to double down on SUV's like gas wouyld be $150 a gallon forever. Believe me, I know: I work in automitive! And you know what? Most of the people AT those companies know too. They al realize that the first one of them to MASS PRODUCE a practical electric car will be in the driver's seat for years to come.
Things is - THAT'S WHY I WANT ALL THIS GREEN ENERGY: Not only do it pollute less, but Gas (etc...) would be CHEAPER as the demmand is eased. (Which would decrease the amount drilled, spilled, etc...) It's a nice direction.
--------------------------------------------
And hey- you know me: I take GW very seriously. Just not nealry seriously enough to pay $12.50 a gallon. LOL
Then why haven't they done so?
It's like health care. Your side says health insurance co's can save us all, but they haven't so far. As I keeping asking wingers but never get an answer, when does all this free market magic start? Next year? Ten years? At what point do you see a trend here? If they can do it next year, why didn't they do it last year?
I do respect your faith and patience in the face of decades of being disappointed by your heroes. I'm sure they appreciate your blind faith.
FYI, A cloud is a visible mass of droplets, in other words, little drops of water or frozen crystals suspended in the atmosphere above the surface of the Earth or another planetary body.
I am sure if they will not catch fire.
In the 1970s there were a couple of scientists who got disproportionate publicity for their claims. The majority of climatologists disputed what their predictions. There was nothing approaching a consensus.
Today there is a consensus by a vast majority of those best qualified to interpret the data that there is a persistent warming trend that that it is anthropogenic in nature.
Big difference that is lost on small minds.
The debt that Bush gave us? Mostly unnecessary. Two tax cuts during wartime? Unprecedented. A voluntary war that we shouldn't be in? We'd have no financial issues if we hadn't wasted billions in Iraq!
It was Bush who almost never found a spending bill he didn't like. It was the Republican-controlled Congress that tripled the number of earmarks!
So yeah, we need to cut the deficit. Not during the times we're in right now, since we need to keep our economy and the world economy from falling into a depression, but yeah, once we recover, we have to do some serious work on the deficit.
And Obama's going to do that. Bush never even tried. So, once again, you have no point.
The global warming catastrophe seems invisible right now. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Look at the graph and you can see that 2009 has the smallest amount of ice on the graph.
Are you ready to agree with me?
Look, I'm sorry but the debate IS NOT over. The earth goes through cycles of heating and cooling based upon sun activity. Should humans try to conserve energy? Sure! However, man's effects on the earths climate are minimal. Will it be worth TRILLIONS of dollars to make a dent the size of pea in the earths climate/environment. No. Should some governments of the world mandate penalties and fees upon others? No.
Look, I'm sorry but the debate IS NOT over
Hey there are still people who deny the holocaust. Sorry to tell you the debate really is over.
Dr. Evans is an expert in coastal, ocean, marine, atmospheric, climate, and space and geophysical sciences. He worked as the leader of the United States Global Climate Change Research Program; managed programs in nautical charting and coastal zone management; and received a meritorious service Presidential Rank Award for his leadership and management at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/simple_proof.pdf
Evans' case fails because he uses the fact of pre-industrial warming as evidence against ACC, even though climatologists have never insisted on CO2 as the only cause. Pielke's case is based on the erroneous assertion that climatologists insist on the idea that "greenhouse gases are the only first order climate forcing."
Regardless of Pielke's flawed logic, the research he cites works very well to disprove Evans' "proof."
"climatologists have never insisted on CO2 as the only cause" So much like Global Warming was not selling to the general public, not you all are going to change what gases do and do not cause GW. I wonder what was going on in the Middle Ages that caused all that GW? Face it, you all are wrong.
"I wonder what was going on in the Middle Ages that caused all that GW? Face it, you all are wrong."
Deny, deny, deny,.... So focused on denying, you hacks don't take the time to learn anything.
Deniers can't ever tell the difference between fact and fiction, yet they spout their opinions on these blogs like they are experts. Yeah, experts at nothing.
MWP was a local event, not global. Deniers have absolutely no idea what local vs. global even means. If you all can't get this simple concept down, why should ANYONE take you seriously?
It is the deniers who are all wrong.
"To claim the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today is to narrowly focus on a few regions that showed unusual warmth. However, when we look at the broader picture, we see that the Medieval Warm Period was a regional phenomenon with other regions showing strong cooling. Globally, temperatures during the Medieval Period were less than today."
From: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Was-there-a-Medieval-Warm-Period.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/medieval-warm-period-mwp/
Wow.
There is no conflicting data between the scientific paper cited on Pielke's website and the little essay that Evans wrote. The differences are in the way the data is applied. The peer-reviewed paper I linked to explains that the period of 1700-1850 was anthropogenic, but not linked to greenhouse gases. The flaws to which I referred don't exist in that paper.
Pielke and Evans both try to referrence that period to make cases against ACC, but they use different kinds of logic. Pielke claims that it proves that "greenhouse gases are the only first order climate forcing." The problem with Pielke's case is that modern climatologists aren't making that claim. They are pointing out that currently, after accounting for other sources of warming as completely as they are able, greenhouse gases and especially CO2 stand out as the single most significant warming factor in recent decades. Pielke is using straw-man logic.
Evans' case in his essay (note - it's not a scientific paper) is somewhat similar, but not identical. He suggests that the mere fact that there was warming before CO2 became a factor somehow means that CO2 isn't now a major contributor. The paper Pielke linked to explodes that because it cites what WERE the major factors in that period, while we know that those factors CAN NOT account for the current upward trend.
The data is fine, it's the logic in both cases that is faulty. And it isn't necessary that Pielke be correct in his logic in order for the report he cites to disprove Evans' "proof." That's faulty logic on YOUR part.
Your last paragraph is such a mangled use of the English language that I don't know what you're trying to claim. I will point out that the medieval warm period was initially overstated as a global phenomenon when it was actually was more of a local European phenomenon. It's overstated and falls within natural variability, though at the upper levels.
Spoken like a "true believer". There's no discussion or mutual discovery of the facts and possible causes, just the typical conservative narrow-mindedness where you must be right and everyone else must be wrong. Find a single inaccuracy in one detail and extrapolate that to mean everything Al Gore has said is wrong.
Are you applying this standard to Beck or Pox News? Do I hear a double-standard?? Oh that's right you're a conservative, so that's a "fact" of life for you.
I think this is the bio for the one who write the piece at your link:
David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak,' Australia
It suggests that we are in a warming period, which reinforces other data suggesting we are in a warming period. To crow about the recovery to near but still below the previous low point is irresponsible, as it suggests the preponderance of empirical long term evidence is irrelevant.
I restate my position that it is arrogant of us humans to claim exclusive responsibility for global climate change, naive at best and irresponsible at least to suggest we are not responsible at all, and that there is no actual climate change other than the normal cycle. I think we are contributing to climate change, and that as responsible stewards of our planet we need to apply our considerable intelligence and creativity to finding ways to mitigate our detrimental impact to the environment.
The fox news site said in 2007, that the ice was shrinking and thinning. I guess Beck conveniently forgot to read the memo.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298013,00.html
"how do you know this is fact from Fox?"
If it's not a Fox web site, then they're certainly letting someone use their name and logo. Did you actually navigate the site?
"So now you think Fox has good data? All I hear around here is that Fox is so wrong"
Fox doesn't have good or bad data. I've never said Fox is wrong, just that they allow distortions and lies to be promoted on their programs. Their "talent", which they don't distinguish between opinion hacks and journalists, distort and lie on a regular basis. They can't even agree with their own web site.
And, don't bring up the "everybody picks on Fox" argument.
I've always welcomed anyone who can demonstrate a repeated pattern of distortions and lies from the MSM.
So far, no takers.
Regardless of what this twit Beck says, the facts are the ice is thinning, and it's caused by us. Period.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/icesat-20090707r.html
"However big the fool, there is always a bigger fool to admire him." - Nicholas Boileau
"Believe one who has proved it. Believe an expert." - Virgil, AeneidRoman epic poet (70 BC - 19 BC)
In the winter-time, one thing dumber than getting on an airplane in Los Angeles wearing an overcoat, is getting off an airplane in Minneapolis without one.
Everyone here complains about the people on Fox, but never mention the 3 1/2 (I don't give hardball a full bucket) slime buckets filled with pure idiots like Keith, Dr. Q, and Ed, who spew their lies and hate on MSDNC.
20 minutes of any of those hours will tell more hate and lies than would have been heard on Fox in 20 years.
You seem to have tripped over a bucket and stumbled into the wrong place.
Since the oceans are heating up so much, shouldn't we be having disastrous hurricanes? I can't wait for the cult to come up with more reasons none of the cataclysmic prophecies have come to fruition.
Cherry pickers...
Religion and spiritual experience are two different things, as is science and opinion. The climate change "skeptics" have lots of the latter and not much of the former.
Did any of you doubleplusgood proles find the time to read the LEAKED (I only did that because the word 'leaked' as opposed to 'hacked' seems to bother some of you so much) e-mails where the 'Settled Science Set' at the CRU were seeking to be funded by Shell and BP? I nearly fell off the chair laughing when I read the e-mail thread. Who again is getting funded by the oil companies? This didn't surprise me given the number of companies already lined up at the feeding trough to shake down the taxpayers by way of mandates and subsidies. Why haven't your thought overlords in the mainstream media or MMFA brought this to your unfocused attention?
On a slightly different front, I was disapppointed to see that MMFA didn't have quite as much stuff about Climategate as normal today. Just as well- it's a fight that the alarmists are destined to lose in the long run anyway.
Don't tell anyone, but the Thought Overlord Control Center diverted us proles to our War on Christmas(tm) today. As you know, we're installing BP feeding troughs in all nativity displays.
Is the satelite record since 1979 long enough to make assesment of trend in Arctic Sea Ice extent?
Is the extent of Arctic Sea Ice an indiactor of AGW ... in other words is it legitimate to say things like "We know that global warming is happening beacuse the Arctic is melting"
What organisation/individuals have an ability to predict future Arctic Sea Ice extent?
How many decades have they been exhibiting these predictive abilities?
Now we get to the crucial questions .... very reasonable questions ... logicaly necessary questions.
If Arctic Sea Ice increases for another year, does this mean that those organisations/individuals that say that they can predict Arctic Sea Ice ... actualy can't?
If in the coming few years the Arctic Sea Ice were to return to levels seen in recent times ... perhaps to the 1979-2000 satelite average ... would that mean that AGW is not happening?
And above all ... simply put ... how much Arctic Sea Ice would we have to see in one Arctic Summer for these charlatans and flim-flam men to pack up their stuff and take a long walk of a short pier.
Now ... readers ... you won't see any kind of response to any of these questions. The kind of prediction that the flim-flam man makes never has an absaloute downside. They like to have the wrigle room ... climate is difficult to predict!! ... yet the do predict it don't they!! Think you'll find that ... it'll shift .. it's not the extent .. it's the thickness!! It's not the Arctic ... it's the Antarctic!! so on and so forth .. like the three shell game ... can you spot the AGW ... no ... it's over here now!!
I note that neither one of you have anything but snark and nothing to back up any of your speculations. Sad.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
and the Antarctic Sea ice has been steadily increasing
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png
The thicker, older ice is fading away.
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure5.png
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-Antarctic-ice-melting-or-growing.html
...and the differences make scientific sense, and still work within the theory of the anthropogenically-enhanced greenhouse effect.
Artic sea ice tends to trend upward in winter.
Unless you are talking about the plot of yearly values, by which you can only get a conclusion of "beginning to increase" if you include only 3 years of data. That has virtually no climatic significance for trend analysis.