backtop


Print 121 comment(s) - last by swordfish.. on Sep 24 at 1:49 AM


Two nuclear-powered Russian icebreakers start for the North Pole
Alarm over sea ice loss is misplaced.

Recent short-term gains in Arctic ice coverage indicate nothing about the eventual state of the Arctic. Answers to the long-term status of the region lie in the realm of a scientific branch known as paleoclimatology. What does it tell us?

The Earth is currently in the geologic epoch known as the Holocene. This began nearly 12,000 years ago when the last ice age (more precisely, the Weichsal glacial) ended. Temperatures warmed, glaciers began to retreat, and the Arctic began to melt. This began what is called an interglacial: a warmer period between glaciation.

We tend to think of the poles as immutable, but geologically speaking, permanent polar ice is a rare phenomenon, comprising less than 10% of history. Icecaps form briefly between interglacials, only to melt as the next one begins -- this time around will be no different.

So we know the Arctic will eventually be open water. The only question is how it will affect us.

The language the media uses to describe Arctic melting is usually emotionally loaded. Filled with terms such as "concern", "desperate", even "dying" and "doomed", one would think a living organism was being described. Experts are always quoted as "warning" us, rather than simply speaking -- classic propaganda techniques.

Even the scientists themselves have an emotional stake in the argument. After all, when you've spent your entire career studying Arctic ice, the possibility of it vanishing is understandably horrifying. But what about the rest of us? Will Arctic melting be good or bad?

Let's look at the scorecard.

No change in sea level.
Arctic ice, which floats rather than being anchored on bedrock, doesn't influence sea levels at all. Antarctica and Greenland do, but with one on a long-term cooling trend, and the other melting at the infinitesimal pace of 0.25% per century, there doesn't seem to be any call for alarm.  Sea level has been rising for thousands of years; the increase over the next century is expected to be less than 1/3 meter.

"Unimaginable" amounts of new resources.
What's at stake is nothing less than millions of square miles of territory, with some of the richest resources known. 90 billion barrels of oil and 1,700 trillion cubic feet of natural gas lie in the region. An ice-free Arctic also means access to other mineral resources, and access to rich new fishing grounds. Analysts have hesitated to put a figure on the total worth.

But that's not all. Just the ability to safely navigate the region is itself valuable.

The Northwest and Northeast Passages
First navigated in 1905, the famed Northwest Passage allows ships to cross between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Currently this requires a trip through the Panama Canal, a lengthy, expensive voyage that is barred to the largest "post-Panamax" class of ships. The permanent opening of the Northwest Passage will shave thousands of miles off each crossing, saving millions of barrels of diesel fuel annually, boosting trade and cutting shipment costs for a wide variety of imported and exported goods.

Nearly as important, the Northeast Passage is vital for parts of Northern Europe and Russia. First navigated as far back as 1879, a permanent opening will not only reduce shipping costs between Russia and Northern Europe, it will be a boon for thousands of tiny coastal communities that are currently cut off from the outside world for most of each year.

Though the benefits are unmistakable, a certain segment of the population argues we shouldn't use them.   They believe using the planet's resources is immoral, even obscene.  But the fact remains that these resources are not just valuable; they're vital.  The still-growing populations of China and India are now clamoring for access to the same standard of living the western world enjoys.  Granting it to them will require new sources of food, energy, and raw materials.

Russia has already put its foot in the door, claiming some 460,000 square miles of new territory -- an area larger than France and Germany combined. With its fleet of nuclear-powered icebreakers already surveying, Russia is brushing aside objections over its cavalier acts.

Some have pointed out that Arctic territorial disputes may lead to conflict, even war. This is possible. But claiming that we shouldn't wish for new resources because we might fight over them is like wishing you won't win the lottery because you and your spouse might argue over how to spend the money. The unlocking of the Arctic's resources is a windfall, no matter how you look at it.

What about the Polar Bears?
Recent research indicates that the species is significantly older than first thought, about 120,000 years old. This means polar bears have survived at least one interglacial before, and therefore doesn't depend on permanent polar ice.

Bears are not the only wildlife in the region. But floating sea ice is not a primary habitat for any species. Many live underneath it, but these are going to benefit dramatically from warmer weather. Higher temperatures equate to more phytoplankton and zooplankton, the base of the pelagic food chain. Measured by total biomass (the sum weight of all living creatures) the northern hemisphere is already seeing increases. That trend should continue.

While it's not impossible that a few ill-adapted species may go extinct, there is no hard evidence to say it will happen. It's also no cause for alarm. Climate change regularly results in a certain degree of extinction; indeed is an essential factor in the freeing of ecological niches so that new species may arise.

Feedback Effects
Sea ice reflects more sunlight than open water.  This leads to a positive-feedback effect where decreasing ice leads to further temperature increases.  Sounds scary, right?  It's not.  The reason is a much stronger negative feedback mechanism from basic thermodynamics. The Stefan-Boltzmann law tells us that radiated energy depends on the fourth power of temperature.  Put simply, even a tiny increase in temperature results in more heat loss.  This explains why past periods in the Earth's history never led to runaway warming. 

Also, the Arctic just doesn't get a lot of sunlight to start with.  That's why it’s so cold there, after all.  What sun it gets is extremely oblique filtered through much more atmosphere due to the high latitude.  While Arctic albedo changes do have an effect, it's very small, possibly even immeasurable on a global scale.

One fact remains without doubt. The warming of the Arctic will not result in our own extinction, or be anything at all but a tremendous boon to mankind and our civilization. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Good article
By mattclary on 9/8/2008 10:03:38 AM , Rating: 5
Based on history, we can definitely determine climate has never had a steady state.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Tempera...

I am baffled why anyone would expect climate to stagnate because man exists.

There are many upsides to a warmer climate while a COLDER climate would be a huge catastrophe. Though polar bears would be able to walk from Alaska to Russia, millions of people would starve as crops failed.




RE: Good article
By porkpie on 9/8/2008 10:39:15 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I am baffled why anyone would expect climate to stagnate because man exists.
Well if you ever sit down and talk to one of the environuts, you'll find out they don't really believe in man-made global warming either.

I have yet to talk for more than 5 minutes to one without them saying some variation of, "well it may not be right, but don't you think eliminating pollution is worth it anyway?"

Of course, CO2 isn't pollution. But try getting one of them to understand that.


RE: Good article
By mattclary on 9/8/2008 10:55:54 AM , Rating: 1
Something I find very ironic is how we should eliminate the emission of CO2 in order to be "green". We need to reduce what plants EAT in order to be "green"!


RE: Good article
By Rodinx on 9/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Good article
By greenchasch on 9/8/2008 12:23:40 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Why not take some action now to prevent what we now will occur?
I love easy questions.

a) the "action" we take will cost a lot more than any possible result of global warming. It's like paying $20K a year to insure a $10K Hyundai. Someone recently (it might have been here) reported that the UN wants $50 TRILLION dollars to fight global warming. And thats just to start. I won't even go into what "alternative" sources will do to our monthly power and gas bills.

b) the action won't do anything to stop global warming, whether or not we're responsible for it. Even the people who most strongly support Kyoto admit it won't make even a measurable difference in world temperatures. And almost every country that signed Kyoto can't even make its targets!


RE: Good article
By Rodinx on 9/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Good article
By FITCamaro on 9/8/2008 12:41:38 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Using resources like wind and sun ( free), are going to bring up the cost of energy?


Uh...yeah. It's more expensive. Less reliable. And produces FAR less energy.


RE: Good article
By jgvandemeer on 9/8/2008 12:46:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
“Global Warming” is a buzz word…I could care a less if it is actually happening or not..it is the effect of the word which could be positive
Glad you finally admitted the truth.


RE: Good article
By masher2 (blog) on 9/8/2008 12:54:57 PM , Rating: 4
> "So buying a more efficient car..."

From a perspective of human emissions, all personal autos combined emit less GHGs than does livestock farming for meat production. From a perspective of total emissions (anthopogenic and natural), cars are less than 0.6% of the global total. Meaning even if we replace them, not just with "more efficient" models, but with ones that don't emit at all, the total effect on planetary CO2 will be negligible.

It's a shame more people aren't taught this.


RE: Good article
By omnicronx on 9/9/2008 10:47:04 AM , Rating: 2
What I always find interesting that livestock account for almost 70 percent of all human related nitrous oxide, which apparently can be 300 times worse than c02 in terms of global warming potential. They also produce 40% of all human induced methane, and they use about 30% of the earths total land surface..

Its not those developing countries that are cause for concern.. its those damn cows!

Now if only they had a way to harness all of that methane ;)


RE: Good article
By Lightning III on 9/9/2008 10:56:11 AM , Rating: 2
sure but your local air quality would increase dramatically

with the corresponding health benifits

go ahead and continue to argue for more pollution

and I'll continue to try to convince cone headed evengelicals to pray that people like you have to live in pasadena texas

the petrochemical paradise you always seem to be advocating



RE: Good article
By brizz on 9/9/2008 4:23:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
go ahead and continue to argue for more pollution


I don't see anyone arguing for that. All that is being said is that all this money getting spent to reduce CO2 isn't going to change a thing because we don't produce even 1% of the total CO2 released each year.

Great article..


RE: Good article
By omnicronx on 9/9/2008 10:57:29 AM , Rating: 3
One thing about the car emissions though, although as you have already explained only 0.6% of all emissions are from vehicles, you can't just say that have efficient cars won't help. If you have ever been to India, or a big Chinese city, or even L.A for that matter you know what I am talking about.

Smog can be terrible, especially for old people and those who have any breathing problems at all, and there are many reported cases of smog induced cancers (although there are other factors). I live in Toronto, where the air quality levels and so-so, and I have problems breathing on a hot day. This coming from someone who runs 3-5k three times a week, so it is not like I am not in shape.


RE: Good article
By OoklaTheMok on 9/15/2008 6:39:57 PM , Rating: 2
The people who advocate for using more fossil fuels have virtually no concern for anything but $$$. Apparently, anything that in someway inhibits the use of fossil fuels is bad.

I have pointed out here repeatedly that the issue of burning fossil fuels is beyond the association to climate change, but rather how it directly affects the health of our ecosystem by way of pollution.

Coal plants emit significant amounts of mercury. That needs to addressed. Gasoline additives find there way into our water supplies. Smog causes respiratory problems.

Regardless of any relationship to climate change, we are poisoning ourselves. And we are paying for it financially, but that cost just isn't part of the price you pay at the pump. There is a value to human life, and it's not measured by the price per barrel or kilowatt hour.


RE: Good article
By onelittleindian on 9/8/2008 12:55:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Using resources like wind and sun ( free)
Put down the crack pipe and step away from the keyboard. Wind and solar aren't free. The cost several times as much as coal or nuclear. Solar's the worst of all, it 400% more when the sun in shining and 4000% more when it isn't (batteries ain't cheap).

quote:
Who gives a crap what the cost is.
You will, when you're paying $1000/m power bills for your apartment. Assuming you ever move out of your parents basement that is.


RE: Good article
By masher2 (blog) on 9/8/2008 12:59:08 PM , Rating: 1
> "Assuming you ever move out of your parents basement that is. "

No need to take things to a personal level.


RE: Good article
By arazok on 9/8/2008 1:16:07 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
So buying a more efficient car is going to bring up the cost of gas?


No, it will lower the cost of gas. However, it will drive up the cost of lithium (assuming we are talking hybrids here), and require more mining for these difficult to obtain earth elements.

quote:
Using resources like wind and sun ( free), are going to bring up the cost of energy?


Um, Solar and Wind are far from free. It costs millions of dollars for a single wind mill, and tens of thousands of dollars for a single solar panel. Oil is only as expensive as it costs to suck it out of the ground and transport it to market.

quote:
Who gives a crap what the cost is.


I do. I’d rather heat my home with natural gas for $500 a year, then with “free” solar power at a cost of $1,000 a year.

quote:
That 300 billion dollars we spent in a Iraq could have put a whole Wind and solar infrastructure into place in the US. But instead we spent it on a war to Secure Oil, because that is who owns our politicians.


Actually, you spent 300 billion dollars to install a friendly government in a strategically critical region of the earth, and to oust a dictator who liked to fire missiles at your planes, and invade his neighbors. For 300 billion, you get one less enemy, a friendly government, an enhanced ability to influence politics in the whole middle east, and yes, a stable, predictable, source of Oil for the whole world (not just America). Far better then a wind farm.

Wake up dude!


RE: Good article
By djkrypplephite on 9/8/2008 2:39:35 PM , Rating: 3
Ahh to secure oil, THAT must be why it's so cheap.


RE: Good article
By BigPeen on 9/8/2008 4:30:36 PM , Rating: 2
WIND AND SOLAR ARE NOT FREE. The "fuel" maybe free, but try and tell me that building a wind turbine is free. Or try telling my fellow engineer friend working on solar cells that his work costs nothing, and that the solar cells are completely "free" to produce (FYI, cleanroom time where solar cell reserach happens, costs $100/bucks an hour, and thats not even the cost of wages or materials). WOW, just wow, YOU need to wake up and learn how the world works.


RE: Good article
By Rodinx on 9/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Good article
By theendofallsongs on 9/8/2008 8:15:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That is how the world works Einstein.
News flash "Einstein". Once developed, the power STILL isn't free. Maintenance and operating costs on windmills are very high, especially the large multi-megawatt kind.

Solar panels are a bit better on maintenance, but they get you on the front end. The costs to buy the panels are so outrageous that, unless you get a fat government subsidy, you don't break even until the panels lifespan is staring you straight in the face.

If these sources of power really were "free", you'd see companies jumping all over them like hotcakes. Instead, the government subsidizes them very heavily and still their only market is for companies or people who want to make a statement, rather than save a buck.

This is how the world really works.


RE: Good article
By WayneG on 9/8/2008 10:27:34 PM , Rating: 2
Mate you know I've given up dealing with this type of person (I refer to them as eco-cavemen), just give them what they want and when the outcome is less than savoury let us SENSIBLE people continue the paths that we were going on.

Wouldn't it be nice if it were soo easy?? :D

PS Seriously how is solar/wind or any other renewable resource free!? The upkeep is absolutely ridiculous beside most other sources!


RE: Good article
By JustTom on 9/9/2008 12:07:12 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing, even if it pays for itself in time, is free. There is always opportunity costs. If I had taken the money needed to install in solar panels and instead invested it my returns would likely be far greater. Solar is not yet competitive with other forms of electric generation. When it is you will see panels popping up on every other building.


RE: Good article
By stonemetal on 9/11/2008 1:39:19 PM , Rating: 2
Who do you plan on selling power to when everyone has solar panels on their house? The grid isn't some mystical electrical storage and delivery device.


RE: Good article
By Ringold on 9/8/2008 4:55:06 PM , Rating: 2
First this:

quote:
Do I believe ranchers in Texas that have become believers because their crops are dying due to drastic climate change, or little computer geeks shut-up in in front of their computers that think they know everything because they have taken a science course.


Then this:

quote:
Who gives a crap what the cost is.


Okay, so the first guy is a little computer geek who apparently doesn't have your vast understanding of climate science. You're quite obviously a little something who doesn't understand anything about economics, but likes to spout off economic arguments as if you do. If you're going to attack others for speaking to something they don't know or don't care to know, it'd probably be good to follow your own advice.

But if you don't care what the price of things are, I've got a submarine from another news article that costs $78 million for you. After the apocalypse Al Gore predicts occur, I reckon you'll be safe in that.


RE: Good article
By FITCamaro on 9/8/2008 12:31:41 PM , Rating: 2
I have no problem with conservation. But using inferior forms of energy that, while maybe being "green", are unreliable and more expensive is not my idea of conservation. Nor is influencing national, if not global, economics on false pretenses of manmade global warming.

Do I support clean energy? Yes. Nuclear and geothermal. If solar and wind EVER catch up, I'll be fine with using them. But even if they were ever 100% efficient, the fact remains that cloudy days happen. Windless days happen. So what does that mean? You either have to have solar and wind installations capable of providing power for the entire country in a multitude of locations (and they already take up a huge amount of land as it is) or you have to have more conventional means of power backing it up. Which means you have to build 50-100% more generating/storage capacity than if you just went with something like nuclear or geothermal to begin with.

And don't act like hybrid cars are clean. They're clean HERE. At the end of the line. The amount of energy that goes into producing one is extremely high and, because of where the batteries are made, extremely polluting.


RE: Good article
By mattclary on 9/8/2008 12:37:17 PM , Rating: 2
Lay off the hate, man. I do what I can, I traded my truck in for a fuel efficient car, I have replaced all bulbs in my house with CF bulbs, I have started keeping my house a LOT warmer than I like in the summer (I like it cold, so rarely run heat in the winter here in Florida).

I do all this because it makes economic and political sense, not because I believe the cult of global warming.


RE: Good article
By mattclary on 9/8/2008 12:40:12 PM , Rating: 2
...and I am a 42 year old divorced male with two jobs and child support payments. I wish I could live in my mom's basement, but she died probably when you were still in diapers.


RE: Good article
By Rodinx on 9/8/2008 12:51:40 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I got a little bit overzealous with the first post ( please disregard all offensive portions of it)..I just get irritated when I read crap like this.


RE: Good article
By mattclary on 9/8/2008 12:59:38 PM , Rating: 2
Apology accepted, thanks.


RE: Good article
By BAFrayd on 9/11/2008 9:48:57 PM , Rating: 2
Facts and common sense are not "crap" to a rational mind. Knee-jerk, emotional reactions and personal attacks are.


RE: Good article
By JustTom on 9/9/2008 12:23:12 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Man is growing exponentially and with that comes exponential use of resources. You can’t argue that!


Well, yeah I can. Since it is obvious you don't know what exponential means. From 1970 to 1980 the world added .8 billion people; from 1990 to 2000 it added .7 billion. Estimates are that population increases will continue to decline; the increases from 2020-2030 is estimated to be .6 billion, from 2030-2040 .6 billion, and from 2040-2050 .4 billion.

One simple inescapable historical fact is the richer a nation becomes the lower its birth rate. Many industrialized countries are actually below replacement rate for births. So, actually if one truly wished to lower human growth he should be for creating as much wealth as possible. Drilling for oil is good birth control.


RE: Good article
By thepalinator on 9/9/2008 12:54:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So, actually if one truly wished to lower human growth he should be for creating as much wealth as possible. Drilling for oil is good birth control.
Could I persuade you to run for the Senate in my district?


RE: Good article
By Rodinx on 9/9/2008 6:38:49 PM , Rating: 2
Oh that’s fricken brilliant Dude.. You must be a genius if you can tell if something has exponential growth from looking at a snap shot of a graph.

This is exponential growth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Population_curv...

Say it with me, Expo..nential..Now wipe drool off of mouth and go to bed


RE: Good article
By Ringold on 9/9/2008 11:58:08 PM , Rating: 1
Uh, you've already made yourself look like a tool (and nicely dodged my earlier post about socialism; guess you can't explain the higher unemployment), no need to make it worse. The global discussion has long since shifted from exponential population growth and towards "Holy shit, our cities are becoming empty, what do we do?" That phrase, translated in to local languages, is not one that would be alien to Japan, Germany, Italy, or several other Western nations. Birth rates in most of the developed world are insufficient to maintain population levels, much less exponential growth. As developing/transitional economies increase GDP per capita, their birth rates.. you guessed it, they fall too.

Since you apparently consider wikipedia a source, then here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Population_grow...

There is one reason and one reason only most of those countries shaded blue are blue; immigration. Notice even South Africa shrinking; that tells you what may well happen throughout the rest of Africa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_populatio...

Since you like looking at pretty pictures, theres another from your "source." Your amazing ability to glean things from a simple "snaop shot of a graph" will hopefully lead you to the same conclusion I reach; the halt of population growth around the middle of this century. To make it worse, all these cute pictures were right next to your alarmist one which conveniently shows such a massive time scale as to be entirely useless.

Stuck in the 1970s are we?


RE: Good article
By Ringold on 9/10/2008 12:04:29 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, and it would indeed not be too difficult to argue that exponential economic growth at this point doesn't necessarily mean exponential increases in the use of "resources" as you understand the word resources. We're now in a post-industrial era where that sort of expansion means little. Increases in wealth today mean increases in the availability of services, services provided by labor or the virtual ("Information Age") fruits of labor. Everybody already has a house, car, cell phone, and media equipment. Now it's mostly about services, and improving the above through refining technology but not necessarily consuming more raw material.

But, you admitted you are a socialist, so I forgive your ignorance as to the very fundamental nature of the economy in which we all live in the Western world.

The above obviously doesn't apply to those not yet living Western lifestyles, but they'll get here eventually.


RE: Good article
By JustTom on 9/10/2008 2:08:21 AM , Rating: 2
First of all take an elementary statistics class. That graph is useless in determining current growth rates. I could just as easily craft a graph with valid data points showing oil production is growing exponentially. And it would be just as useless in any meaningful discussion.

Secondly, you did not state human population has grown exponentially in the past you stated it is doing so now. And that is wrong. It has not for decades, it is not expected to for the foreseeable future. Most analysis of population growth predicts a peak in human population within the next century. Some place it as soon as 2050. It should be evident, even to you, that if something has peaked not only is its growth not exponential there is no growth at all.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1108-global-...


RE: Good article
By othercents on 9/10/2008 12:16:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nothing but good comes from conservation

Yeah, energy companies will downsize because of a drop in profits. Massive amount of people will be out of work and unable to pay for the even the lower energy costs. Numerous people will starve and freeze to death because of the massive swing in temperature caused by our focus on conservation and environmental frenzy.

Nothing but good. At least this way we can get rid of millions of people that the planet can't support. Isn't that one of the key factors? Half as many humans will help the planet?

Other


RE: Good article
By teldar on 9/13/2008 12:41:03 PM , Rating: 2
And you're an expert because you sit in front of your computer and read these?
Hmm.

Sounds ironic.

And anyone who knows anything about global warming knows that we will have MORE rain in a warmer climate.


RE: Good article
By FITCamaro on 9/8/2008 11:03:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am baffled why anyone would expect climate to stagnate because man exists.


Because people like Al Gore have an ego the size of small continents.


RE: Good article
By Polynikes on 9/9/2008 1:50:53 PM , Rating: 2
We want to live in a perfect world, even if it means taking obscene measures to artificially alter the global climate, among other things.

For example:
http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/project-earth/highligh...

It's strange, hardcore environmentalists would argue that doing anything to artificially alter the Earth is wrong. I would tend to agree to some point. Bringing back the dinosaurs probably isn't a good idea, nor is building giant sun reflectors or wrapping Greenland in a freaking blanket. Let things take their natural course. We'll get by.

The not-quite-as-hardcore environmentalists, however, think we should mess with the Earth as much as possible.

Here's to living in a perfect world.


Very nicely written
By Spivonious on 9/8/2008 9:19:21 AM , Rating: 2
Very nicely written essay, Michael. I would have liked to see some more cites on your positive spins though.




RE: Very nicely written
By wordsworm on 9/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Very nicely written
By jgvandemeer on 9/8/2008 10:28:31 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Just to show how bipolar this writer is, in one article Mike is showing how the Arctic is gaining ice
Didn't read the article, did you? Try again. I'll help ya out.
quote:
Recent short-term gains in Arctic ice coverage indicate nothing about the eventual state of the Arctic. Answers to the long-term status of the region lie in the realm of a scientific branch known as paleoclimatology.


RE: Very nicely written
By greenchasch on 9/8/2008 11:20:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
> "He doesn't care about the facts. The only thing he cares about is finding whatever argument he can to make people not care"
You would have been a lot more convincing if you had found a fact he got wrong, rather than just spewing a bunch of insults.


RE: Very nicely written
By underqualified on 9/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Very nicely written
By i4mt3hwin on 9/8/2008 12:42:50 PM , Rating: 2
We modded it down for a reason, because again, if you read the article it clearly states:

quote:
Recent short-term gains in Arctic ice coverage indicate nothing about the eventual state of the Arctic. Answers to the long-term status of the region lie in the realm of a scientific branch known as paleoclimatology.


Looks like we need to silence you now.


RE: Very nicely written
By underqualified on 9/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Very nicely written
By FITCamaro on 9/8/2008 5:16:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well that post is about the hypocrisy of one week stating that "massive" gains are signs that global warming is really a myth


If you actually read Michael's article about the Arctic gaining, ice, no where in it does it say that. In fact the term global warming is only mentioned once.

quote:
Earlier this year, concerns over global warming led the US to officially list the polar bear a threatened species, over objections from experts who claimed the animal's numbers were increasing.


RE: Very nicely written
By v3rt1g0 on 9/8/2008 5:22:51 PM , Rating: 2
Try posting something intelligent. We'll have no need to "silence" you.


RE: Very nicely written
By underqualified on 9/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Very nicely written
By Jim28 on 9/8/2008 9:48:35 PM , Rating: 2
can't argue with a troll.


RE: Very nicely written
By Denigrate on 9/8/2008 11:39:34 PM , Rating: 2
Too bad you are one of the special people who know all.


RE: Very nicely written
By Jim28 on 9/9/2008 11:17:16 AM , Rating: 2
Just like you eh?


RE: Very nicely written
By underqualified on 9/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Very nicely written
By underqualified on 9/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Very nicely written
By underqualified on 9/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Very nicely written
By FITCamaro on 9/8/2008 11:02:03 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Very well written Michael.


RE: Very nicely written
By kartim on 9/8/2008 11:47:20 AM , Rating: 2
What about the change of salinity in the oceans from the melt? He never dicusses that impact on sea lfe. And how can the melt not effect the ocean levels to where the geographic make-up of the planet will be altered to cause great economic problems and loss of life?


RE: Very nicely written
By Spivonious on 9/8/2008 12:01:14 PM , Rating: 2
If you have a glass with ice in it, does the water level rise when the ice melts?

The salinity should also stay exactly the same, assuming the arctic ice is frozen sea water.


RE: Very nicely written
By kartim on 9/8/2008 12:07:39 PM , Rating: 2
From wikpedia: A glacier is a large, slow-moving river of ice, formed from compacted layers of snow.


RE: Very nicely written
By Spivonious on 9/8/2008 4:10:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, that is a glacier. What does this have to do with polar ice?


RE: Very nicely written
By thepalinator on 9/9/2008 12:51:10 PM , Rating: 2
Careful. You might make his head explode.


RE: Very nicely written
By masher2 (blog) on 9/8/2008 12:07:53 PM , Rating: 3
> "how can the melt not effect the ocean levels "

Floating sea ice (or anything else which floats) displaces its mass in water, not its volume. This means when ice reverts back to liquid form, there is no net effect of the total volume displaced.

> "What about the change of salinity in the oceans from the melt?"

There is far more liquid water in the ocean than ice. Total water locked in ice is about 1.6% of the global total. . . but nearly all that is in Antarctica. Most of the rest is in Greenland. The melting of Arctic sea ice would not appreciably influence total ocean salinity.


You're contributing to global warming
By gmw1082 on 9/8/2008 9:28:34 AM , Rating: 2
But...but...the media people said we were all going to die a slow horrible death by uncontrolled warming. Stop making all these contradicting arguments; it will only make people think more. Thinking requires energy and as we all know energy consumption = more global warming.

/sarcasm




RE: You're contributing to global warming
By FITCamaro on 9/8/2008 11:00:56 AM , Rating: 2
Nah man. The real reason people are fighting to protect the idea of manmade global warming and "Save the Arctic" is because if the Arctic melts, where will Santa Clause live?


RE: You're contributing to global warming
By kattanna on 9/8/2008 11:33:36 AM , Rating: 2
ok, now that was funny!


RE: You're contributing to global warming
By Rodinx on 9/8/08, Rating: -1
By masher2 (blog) on 9/8/2008 12:17:08 PM , Rating: 2
Tying Arctic melting to GW-- especially anthropogenic GW -- is problematic. Basic theory predicts polar amplification of the GHG signal. But the Arctic is warming much faster than the theory predicts, whereas the Antarctic (which should be receiving roughly the same increase) is actually cooling.

Furthermore, rapid melting in the Arctic began in the 1800s, before fossil fuel emissions were significant.

Cleary there are other factors at work here. There's been a significant amount of recent research identifying processes other than GW in the Arctic. I've reported on a few of those papers, but many more exist.


RE: You're contributing to global warming
By kattanna on 9/8/2008 1:07:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So I guess stuff like this is meaningless?


not at all, but can you not take a moment and enjoy a funny joke when it happens?


RE: You're contributing to global warming
By Ringold on 9/8/2008 5:23:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
not at all, but can you not take a moment and enjoy a funny joke when it happens?


Well, Harry Truman on the matter..

Professional liberals are too arrogant to compromise. In my experience, they were also very unpleasant people on a personal level. Behind their slogans about saving the world and sharing the wealth with the common man lurked a nasty hunger for power. They'd double-cross their own mothers to get it or keep it.

Just for clarity, Truman was indeed a Democrat, but had a huge amount of disdain for people like Gore, and.. well, pretty much the entire current ideological crop.


By theendofallsongs on 9/8/2008 8:16:03 PM , Rating: 2
Truman was a pretty smart guy.


By robinthakur on 9/9/2008 10:48:02 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, all meaningless. Seriously why are we spending money "fighting" something which doesn't exist? Recycling is a positive thing if not taken to extremes and the infrastructure is available for it to make economic sense and sustainable economic power is of interest, but honestly few ratiocnal people would disagree with these salient points. They just don't like being told by alarmists that natural change is a sign of the end of the world constantly.

The problem comes when these dramatic predictions don't occur and the alarm scale has to be raised even higher to keep getting people interested. It seriously saps any credibility that environmentalists might have when they seem to be making it up as they go along.

The real scandal is that governments are now seeing the fear of environmental catastrophe as a viable tax revenue generator or a reason to cut back on services/limit individual freedoms. If you want proof of this, see the UK with the vocal anti-plane/anti-car lobbies, the stupidly strict restrictions on bi-weekly garbage collection with fines, anti-G.M. foods lobby. Home environmental impact packs and 95% sales tax on already expensive gasoline. Talk about making the country unattractive to live in...and that's on top of all the other outrageous taxes. You don't know how lucky you are in the US, relatively free from the enviro-nazis. Mind you, you do have more religious nutjobs than we do :/


RE: You're contributing to global warming
By SoCalBoomer on 9/9/2008 12:42:36 PM , Rating: 2
20 square miles in the perspective of the entire Arctic region is tiny. . . that's 4 x 5 miles. . . that's a dot.

Perspective man, perspective!


By thepalinator on 9/9/2008 12:48:47 PM , Rating: 2
Whoa, careful man. Sensible talk like that will get you kicked out of California.


RE: You're contributing to global warming
By FITCamaro on 9/8/2008 12:36:38 PM , Rating: 2
Kid: "Mommy is Santa still alive?"

Mom: "No Santa drowned because his ass was too fat to tread water. All the elves are dead too. But the reindeer got out and were safe until hunters shot them. Rudolph's head is in Cheney's study now."


By ssjwes1980 on 9/10/2008 8:38:25 AM , Rating: 2
Love it! lol


By rcc on 9/12/2008 6:37:22 PM , Rating: 2
Dude! You are way off base here. Fat people float better, and survive better in cold water. Get your science straight.

He was really held under by liberals because he required something in exchange for the handouts..... that whole naughty/nice thing.


Elephant in the room: Thermal Expansion
By captainsparkle on 9/13/2008 7:24:51 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think anybody (who knows what they are talking about..) ever claimed that the sea level rises because the arctic melts. Sea levels rise due to Thermal expansion. E.G. when something warms up, it expands.
What is special--it is most dense at a touch under 4 degrees C. That is require for ice to be formed. If that were to stop because, the temperature were to increase to around 8 degrees, then, on average, the ocean would rise over 50 meters (approx. 0.015%) simply due to thermal expansion. Even an increase to 5 degrees (and a 0.005% expansion) would increase sea-level nearly 20 meters.

Yes, the loss of arctic ice would be GREAT for the shipping and oil industries. Should they really be top on the list of groups needing aid?

Also, Wikipedia isn't a valid source--it has no acceptable vetting. Try Citizendium.




RE: Elephant in the room: Thermal Expansion
By jimandalice on 9/13/2008 11:07:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, the loss of arctic ice would be GREAT for the shipping and oil industries
That's a very ignorant statement.

Every product and service we use depends on the price of energy and shipping. Benefit those two industries and you benefit everyone alive. The economy isn't a zero sum game.


RE: Elephant in the room: Thermal Expansion
By captainsparkle on 9/14/2008 10:25:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, the loss of arctic ice would be GREAT for the shipping and oil industries That's a very ignorant statement. Every product and service we use depends on the price of energy and shipping. Benefit those two industries and you benefit everyone alive. The economy isn't a zero sum game.


To quote The Godfather:
"Kay, now who is the one being Naive?"

Exactly what gives you the confidence that any of the oil companies (or any company for that matter) have your best interests in mind?
The facts are: As oil prices have gone up in the past few years, oil companies have made record profits. Regardless of one's opinion on the environmental costs, any more oil that gets introduced into the system will incur "real" costs of exploration, oil rigs, drilling, pumping, shipping, etc-- these costs will be passed back to the consumer. Additionally, gasoline is produced by refining. Unless there is an associated increase in refining capacity, gasoline prices will not be greatly affected by more oil reserves.

just because "there is more oil" doesn't mean that gasoline or oil is going to be any cheaper, nor does it mean we should ignore the rest of the consequences to get it.


RE: Elephant in the room: Thermal Expansion
By masher2 (blog) on 9/15/2008 12:10:38 AM , Rating: 2
> "Exactly what gives you the confidence that any of the oil companies (or any company for that matter) have your best interests in mind?"

Why they don't, of course. That's the beauty of capitalism. A company enriching itself simultaneously enriches everyone else it deals with. Free trade benefits everyone.

> "Unless there is an associated increase in refining capacity, gasoline prices will not be greatly affected by more oil reserves"

This isn't true. We have the same refining capacity we did two years ago. Yet gas prices have doubled. Why? Almost entirely because of the price of oil (some small portion of that is due to more stringent government regulations, phasing out of MTBE, etc).

Yes, refining capacity sets a lower bound on the price of gasoline. But we're far above that minimum bound at present.

More oil *does* mean lower prices. It's unavoidable. One cannot put more oil into the system without lowering prices.


By captainsparkle on 9/16/2008 10:14:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This isn't true. We have the same refining capacity we did two years ago. Yet gas prices have doubled. Why? Almost entirely because of the price of oil (some small portion of that is due to more stringent government regulations, phasing out of MTBE, etc).


Gasoline prices can also go up due to the drop in the dollar combined with an increased in demand for gasoline; these will have much more than oil prices per barrel. For example, here in the UK, gas prices have gone up 20-30% while oil prices have more than doubled. In the States (Indiana), I noticed gas prices over double over the same period.

We agree that corporations are after their bottom line more than peoples' interest. We also agree that, as oil prices go up, oil companies have made more money. So why again do you expect that an oil company is going to spend Billions to explore for new oil, build deep sea rigs in the arctic, all to make less money?

Not to mention the entire "Still destroys the world with thermal expansion" matter.

$100 a barrel oil benefits oil companies. So long as they can use their money to have a say, oil will stay that way.


great article
By omnicronx on 9/8/2008 4:22:33 PM , Rating: 2
great article although one part i am confused by:
quote:
Higher temperatures equate to more phytoplankton and zooplankton
I was always led to believe it was the opposite, plankton thrives in cold temperatures. Here is an image you have personally used in the past (green = more plankton)

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-...

Where the confusion usually lies is that plankton usually come around in the spring, but this is not necessarily because the water temperatures have raised, it is because harsh winter storms stir up the water, and in doing so push nutrients to the surface, along with the fact that the sun needs to be powerful enough for photosynthesis.

That being said, they still thrive in cold water, what happens to the areas further south that used to be habitable, but because of the increased heat, are no longer suitable for the plankton. All in all, warming could possibly mean the slow decline until they adapt, not in increase in plankton. Either way, I am not sure, and I do not think the scientific community can be sure.. which leads me to believe that you can't be sure ;)

The rest of your article is very informative though.




RE: great article
By masher2 (blog) on 9/8/2008 6:05:50 PM , Rating: 2
I should have been more precise. You are indeed correct that sea temperatures beyond a certain point are detrimental to phytoplankton. However, ocean temperatures at or slightly below 0C are substantially below this limit. Warming will only raise this a couple of degrees which by itself will have very little effect. The real difference is the lack of ice and snow cover, which allows the necessary sunlight to reach the sea itself, powering photosynthesis.


RE: great article
By captainsparkle on 9/16/2008 10:28:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I should have been more precise. You are indeed correct that sea temperatures beyond a certain point are detrimental to phytoplankton. However, ocean temperatures at or slightly below 0C are substantially below this limit. Warming will only raise this a couple of degrees which by itself will have very little effect. The real difference is the lack of ice and snow cover, which allows the necessary sunlight to reach the sea itself, powering photosynthesis.


Yes, but the average ocean temperature is closer to 4C
(roughly where water is its most dense, and therefore sinks. This is why ice forms on the surface, as the entire body of water must first reach the 4C threshold before anything can freeze). I think the numbers are actually 3.8somethingC, but I don't have a source.

Also, we still have the matter of thermal expansion; any temperature increase over 4C means water expands. If that becomes 5C, sea levels will rise about 0.005%--or nearly 20 meters. at 8C, that would be over 50 meters.
http://hypertextbook.com/physics/thermal/expansion...

a couple of degree difference in water temperature world over will pretty much mean the end of society as we know it, simply by thermal expansion.


Some interesting points
By Andy35W on 9/10/2008 2:35:37 AM , Rating: 2
I guess they are similar to what Michael Asher has said before, but now applied to the artic (benefits of AGW if such a thing exists).

One thing that puzzles me is that the article seems to reference very long term geological time frame changes but all the listed benefits seem to be concerned with man and what man does now within the next few years (the passage of ships, fishing to replace worn out stocks, oil exploration, sea level rise in the next century).

On the geologic timescale none of these "benefits" are probably of any relevance at all. Even from 100 years ago trade patterns and resource/location has changed significantly, so the only thing these things will be a "benefit" if there is a reduction in the next 10,50 or 100 years and that will mean AGW. Which is not happening of course, already the artic has increased massively in Ice extent this year, a size twice the size of Germany.

Regards

Andy




RE: Some interesting points
By masher2 (blog) on 9/10/2008 10:53:09 AM , Rating: 2
> "On the geologic timescale none of these "benefits" are probably of any relevance at all. "

Of course. On a geologic scale, man himself is just an insignificant blip. On the time table of man and human civilization, however, an ice-free Arctic would be a great blessing.

> "Which is not happening of course, already the artic has increased massively in Ice extent this year, a size twice the size of Germany"

Actually, it increased by that much compared to the previous year. But on a seasonal basis, the Arctic varies by an area ten times that size -- a block of ice 10 million square kilometers melts and refreezes each year.

As I said in the comments there, that article was not intended to suggest any long-term reversal of the trend. It's highly unlikely that Arctic ice doesn't continue the decline it began 12,000 years ago.


RE: Some interesting points
By Andy35W on 9/11/2008 1:17:13 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, there will definitely be some advantages. I can only hope that they are using the NW and NE passages to transport more useful stuff around and not the junk that comes currently such as the free plastic toys that you get with Unhappy Meals etc.

There was a radio report on the World Service today about how the US Coastguard are having to change how they work because they now have to patrol more area up above Alaska and this made me think of your article. I'll try and post the link if they put it on line.

Regards

Andy


historic sea ice cover
By barry schwarz on 9/10/2008 3:51:40 AM , Rating: 2
From where does the author get his information that arctic sea ice disappears during every interglacial?

Scientists generally agree that the current Arctic ice is at least 700 000 years old - which puts an ice free Arctic at a time before humankind was around (modern humans arose 200 000 years ago). It may be a few million years old, but an ice free Arctic 125 000 years ago is not supported in the literature, and definitely not during the last few interglacials.

The present interglacial peaked 8 to 10 thousand years ago, whereupon the global temperature trended down very slowly until the industrial age. Typically for intergalcials, the highest temperatures occur at the beginning of the period, and slowly come down towards the next glacial period.

Further, we have not had an ice free Arctic in the time of civilization, where state borders sprang up and modern infrastructure was established. Where once we were nomadic creatures, following the game and crop as climate changed, our husbandry has rooted our infrastructure in particular locales. Gradual climate change is not the concern here. The concern is relatively rapid climate change where humankind is much more 'locked in' to the ecosystems providing sustenance than ever before. A world without Arctic ice is something we have not experienced in human history, and it is very likely to produce profound changes in a short period of time considering changes in ocean/air circulation, a loss of albedo and other physical processes affected by the presence of ice at the Arctic. The changes around the globe that will be felt by an ice-free Arctic must be considered against the possible benefits locally.

Furthermore, that the Arctic has been ice free in the more distant past does not say anything about the processes causing the shrinkage now, but the rapid decline up North is a strong indicator of the rapid change that anthropogenic 'greenhouse' gases may cause globally.




RE: historic sea ice cover
By masher2 (blog) on 9/10/2008 10:45:37 AM , Rating: 2
> "Scientists generally agree that the current Arctic ice is at least 700 000 years old "

You've been reading Wikipedia again. While not normally a bad source, on any politically-charged topic, it is utterly worthless. The Wiki article doesn't even agree with its own sources, much less the wide body of published literature.

There are literally thousands of papers that agree the last interglacial (100 kY ago) Arctic temperatures were much too warm to support permanent sea ice:
quote:
Reconstructions at both sites indicate that summer temperatures during the last interglacial were higher than at any time in the Holocene, and 5 to 10 °C higher than present.
http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/papers2/franciset...

Even the NSIDC data center agrees. I quote:
quote:
The last time that the ocean was likely free of summertime ice was 125,000 years ago, during the height of the last major interglacial period, known as the Eeemian
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html

The Arctic may indeed have been free of ice as little as 8,000 years ago, during the Holocene Maximum. Scientists are split on this point, however, temperatures were warmer than today, but potentially summer ice could have still existed.

I could quote literally hundreds of more sources, but honestly a quick search of published papers should demonstrate this to your satisfaction.


RE: historic sea ice cover
By captainsparkle on 9/14/2008 10:33:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You've been reading Wikipedia again. While not normally a bad source, on any politically-charged topic, it is utterly worthless. The Wiki article doesn't even agree with its own sources, much less the wide body of published literature.


In almost everything that I have read on wikipedia (of which i have enough knowledge to comment) is total garbage. It is usually just flat-out incorrect--and that is on the easy historical bits. Really, we should all learn not to rely on it. It is not vetted in any functional way, which is why some of its founders left to form citizendium; same model, but real names, you have to prove credentials and everything is vetted. But that's a rant for another time.


More Ice in the Arctic than 1 year ago.
By DPercy on 9/8/2008 6:14:15 PM , Rating: 2
Use this link...

http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/Analyses.html#nh...

run the animation then click "Ice cover same time last year. As you can see it's not even close to melting back to the North Pole, but then those stories died in early August when it became apparent it would not. It would have taken the coldest Arctic summer in 300 years for the Northwest Passages not to have opened up.

-Dave Percy




By DPercy on 9/8/2008 6:23:21 PM , Rating: 2
I forgot to add....remember this Daily Tech story?

http://www.dailytech.com/Global+Warming+to+Melt+No...


Boats.
By UppityMatt on 9/8/2008 10:13:34 AM , Rating: 2
I just have to say that photo with the ice breakers is pretty sweet. And as always i like your articles Masher, keep up the great work.




By General Disturbance on 9/8/2008 12:06:51 PM , Rating: 2
those are Canadian resources! Hands off! Now, where's those 100 canoes the military ordered!?




It's called fear
By 16nm on 9/8/2008 3:57:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The language the media uses to describe Arctic melting is usually emotionally loaded. Filled with terms such as "concern", "desperate", even "dying" and "doomed", one would think a living organism was being described. Experts are always quoted as "warning" us, rather than simply speaking -- classic propaganda techniques.

Even the scientists themselves have an emotional stake in the argument. After all, when you've spent your entire career studying Arctic ice, the possibility of it vanishing is understandably horrifying.


FWIW, they are using fear to persuade us. Fear is the single greatest persuasionary tactic. It tends to make people think irrationally -- no, it tends to make them not think at all.




hehe, this topic should be good!
By Oroka on 9/12/2008 11:36:16 PM , Rating: 2
Here it is.

Q. Is global warming our fault?
A. No, but we may have sped it up a bit.

Q. Is going 'green' a waste of time?
A. Of course not. It wont reverse global warming, but it is a good idea reguardless. Less pollution can only be a good thing.

Q. Is it too late to fix things?
A. There is nothing to fix really. It is (mostly) natural and would happen with or with-out us, as it has over and over again in the past.

Q. Will it affect my children?
A. Yup. More farm land, more resources, maybe war over said resources, but less ice is a good thing.

IMO we are at a crucial time in human history. We are near the climax of good climate conditions and it may be our opportunity to clean up our act, fix alot of our social woes (like starvation, poverty...), and finally get in-tune with the planet rather than wrecking it. The Earth is ours to maintain or distroy.

Global warming is a sexy political issue, it makes great news stories and compels people to donate money. The only articles you see most of the time is anything that supports the whole global warming cause. You rarely hear anything that would contradict the whole story. Im sure the UN would like to have $50 Trillion dollars, still wouldnt do squat for global warming. Maybe a planetary cooling system... http://www.weebls-stuff.com/wab/cold/




Good article
By ncraider55 on 9/23/2008 9:13:02 AM , Rating: 2
I am not a highly educated man but any moron should be able to understand that this planet has evolved since the begining of time and will continue to do so weather man is here to influence it or not.




Globally warm and warming
By swordfish on 9/24/2008 1:49:13 AM , Rating: 2
A movement in support of global warming should be begun as soon as possible. We just got through with the coolest, wettest summer here in the Arizona desert and, frankly, I'm sick and tired of these selfish: "Oh, climate change and the rest of the sky is falling, too," crowd. I, for one support global climate change!

Some places are flat too hot and others too cold. Since we, as humans, obviously have the power to change the global climate we need to do so at once! We need to establish committees whose job it is to decide whether some should be adjusted while others stay the same.

Just a thought, since 18% of all greenhouse gases are
resultant of methane coming from cattle we should harness that portion from manure and bovine flattulent. This then could be concentrated and ignited from a simple spark, or say pulling the old electric car from the garage on a cold day. Instantly, the entire local climate could be converted to one of balmy warmth.

Conversely, by increasing the amount of vegetarianism in a certain area (must be vegan - no dairy) there would be no need for cattle - hence, this area could eventually become cooler.

I could be wrong, but it seems that we could keep from overlooking a whole area of problems we humans could change.




Seriously
By Moklar on 9/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: Seriously
By Suomynona on 9/16/2008 8:37:31 AM , Rating: 1
Here's the problem: the owner of DT is as scientifically illiterate and politically motivated as Asher - http://kristopher.us/2008/02/to-rush-limbaugh.html

It's difficult to work out what's wrong with Asher. Is he purely delusional or so immoral that he's happy to lie about anything provided he's getting $$$s? Either way, it's difficult to express the level of contempt that people like Asher deserve.


ok ok
By underqualified on 9/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: ok ok
By FITCamaro on 9/8/2008 12:40:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I just hope no one at all considers any of that fact considering the paper you linked to ends a little something like this: "The opinions expressed here are soley his own."


Maybe cause the guy has integrity and doesn't try to speak for the rest of the world.

Michael has never said global warming isn't happening. He's just said human beings haven't got sh*t to do with it. And has just tried to fight this idea that what's happening in the world will be the doom of us all unless we change our ways.


RE: ok ok
By underqualified on 9/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: ok ok
By masher2 (blog) on 9/8/2008 1:59:55 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt you're interested in any real understanding here, but one can't talk about "global warming" without defining the scale. Over the past 250 years, the world has indisputably warmed. Over the past five years, it has just as indisputably cooled.

Now one can certainly argue whether or not the short-term cooling trend indicates any reversal of the longer-term warming. The UN IPCC itself says warming will start again by the end of the year; other researchers say it will be on hold anywhere from another 5 years up to as many as 80 or more.

Personally, I have no opinion either way. There isn't enough data to form anything beyond a vague guess. GHG-based forcing is a reality, however if the current trend continues any longer, we will be forced to conclude that forcings due to non-TSI based solar variations have been severely underestimated.


RE: ok ok
By underqualified on 9/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: ok ok
By underqualified on 9/8/2008 3:25:52 PM , Rating: 2
OOPS! Grammar error. Please disregard "based on" in number 5


RE: ok ok
By v3rt1g0 on 9/8/2008 5:42:42 PM , Rating: 2
Underqualified,
One too many 'YAY!'s there bud. From now on I'm going to picture you as 'special Ed' from crank yankers, with the blue and yellow helmet, OK?

Also, most of your 'questions' are horribly crafted and rhetorical. Try again.


RE: ok ok
By underqualified on 9/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: ok ok
By underqualified on 9/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: ok ok
By ssjwes1980 on 9/10/2008 8:42:47 AM , Rating: 2
hes a little slow...


RE: ok ok
By FITCamaro on 9/8/2008 2:29:24 PM , Rating: 2
First the first few articles, after a cooling period, what will happen? Warming.

This is what people like you seem to be incapable of understanding. The climate does not work one way. It does not just go up or down and never change.


RE: ok ok
By underqualified on 9/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: ok ok
By underqualified on 9/9/2008 8:48:57 PM , Rating: 1
FIT I'm just so happy people like you are doing their part to keep people like me informed. Look I've got no beef with you. I've got no beef with your beliefs. What I have a problem with are claims made using suspect data from suspect sources. If you want to join the conversation, I would like to welcome you but I require verifiable sources of information for any claim you'd like to refute. If you just want to take a stab at me in defense of our friend Mike, go right ahead. I'll dispatch you just like I have the rest.


RE: ok ok
By underqualified on 9/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: ok ok
By Zshazz on 9/9/2008 2:31:02 AM , Rating: 3
Y'know, the whole rating system is in place for a reason. I'm sure if you keep trying to circumvent it, you'll eventually get banned.

I read the red posts anyway (because, you ARE given an option), but I just know that the people posting may be annoying/trolling/etc. You prove this every time you repost your rated-down messages, of course ;)

The really bad thing is that you're forcing your opinions down the throats of the people who have no desire to read the red. Some people actually don't want to read the posts of trolls, understandably so. Why not think of someone other than yourself when you do things like this?


RE: ok ok
By underqualified on 9/9/2008 10:05:08 PM , Rating: 1
You know what, I was in the middle of doing the same thing again when I read this and recognized you're totally right. This was infantile from the beginning but the entire purpose of the posts was as a joke. It seems to have become an example of the author's inability to actually defend these articles with independent evidence. He instead relies on an army of sidekicks to speak for him when he is unable. If you believe the man is actually knowledgeable, you should allow him to defend himself. It's honestly impossible to take the whole system seriously when every dissenting opinion is immediately interrupted by someone who believes it doesn't belong. It was an example of the closed minded nature of those who were continually criticizing others for lacking open minds. If open discourse was truly possible here, I would have actually focused on making serious points rather than the BS. In all honesty I would much rather do that but I've got free time on my hands so I still responded lol.

You do, however, make a great point. While I agree that people might not want to read the posts, the effect of the downrating is apparent as you must use your option to read them. This creates a simulated default judgement used by the followers (lol sorry) to define what is and is not readily accessible to those choosing to read the forums. I am most certainly not a troll. I've read dailytech since the beginning as I've been an anandtech reader for years. The tech news here is great but the science articles from "authors" such Michael Asher and Jason Mick are an embarassment to the site. Their citations are so irresponsible it's extraordinary. I have no problem with the basis of their articles. My problem is that when using media to support a cause that you believe in, it is even more important to have independently verifiable sources that aren't subject to obvious conflicts of interests. This is expressly because only the few will truly verify the validity of the source. The large majority will simply click a link, if they check anything at all, and see the supporting evidence they were meant to see. The subterfuge works flawlessly up until that point, but it usually only takes 2 more clicks to find the conflict of interest and 1 simple internet search to find credibility issues.

Disseminating information is an extraordinarily powerful action. It should be respected accordingly. This lack of respect for the news as an institution is my beef. So those of use who used to enjoy dailytech are now forced to be silent and ignore this problem or move on to other sources of information. It's sad this place has fallen so far. You did get one thing wrong though. I do not want to force my opinion on anyone and I was thinking of others. I was thinking of the others who might get taken in by a somewhat compelling argument while missing the intentional ignorance of principle. Michael is obviously intelligent enough to know better. I wonder why he doesn't do better?


RE: ok ok
By porkpie on 9/10/2008 12:55:24 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
It seems to have become an example of the author's inability to actually defend these articles with independent evidence.
Actually he was very patient with you in the oil spills article, even though you were rude and making stupid accusations that don't even take 10 seconds of googling to prove wrong.

So he shows you you're wrong, then you go off on some bizarre tangent about how he was an ax murderer or something because he quoted a newspaper that once had some kind of minor scandal. Too weird for words.

Personally I would have told you to take a hike a long time ago. Your posts dont make sense, you type a whole freakin book without ever backing up any of your accusations, and frankly, you act like a mental patient out on parole. Next you start copying and reposting your downrated garbage and you wonder why no one bothers to waste time on you?


Oh boy
By Griswold on 9/9/08, Rating: -1
“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith

Related Articles
















botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki