backtop


Print 102 comment(s) - last by Marlowe.. on Sep 21 at 9:04 AM


Satellite Observations of Antarctic Sea Ice, showing this year's record high. The sharp spikes are caused by seasonal variations.  (Source: University of Illinois, Polar Research Group)

Antarctic sea ice coverage at a recorded record high.  (Source: University of Illinois, The Cryosphere Today)
Highest amount seen since record-keeping began

Researchers at the University of Illinois are reporting a sharp increase in the total amount of sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere. Recent observations show the total ice area now at 16.26 million square kilometers -- the highest amount seen since record-keeping began, and up more than 8% over the past five years.

This corresponds with research conducted last year by the Cambridge Centre for Polar Observations, which found Antarctica ice sheets to be thickening and gaining mass. Global temperature data shows mainland Antarctica (all but the small Antarctic Peninsula) has cooled by up to 1F during the last fifty years, countering a warming trend that began at least as early as 1850.

David Bromwich, professor of atmospheric sciences at Ohio State University, says, "It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now".

As Antarctica sets historic highs, the Northern ice cap, however, has been on a steady decline, and this year reached a record low. According to the report, "The [Northern Hemisphere] sea ice area is currently at its historic minimum (2.92 million sq. km) representing a 27% drop in sea ice coverage compared to the previous (2005) record NH ice minimum."

Luckily, Arctic ice does not rest upon bedrock, and thus its melting does not affect world sea levels. However, the discrepancy is a difficult to explain by anthropogenic global warming models, which predict both polar regions to warm substantially.

The warming Arctic is expected to eventually open up gas and oil resources in the region, as well as a new sea trade route, saving up to 8,000 miles on cargo shipping between Asia and the rest of the world.



Comments     Threshold


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

Global??? I think not
By acer905 on 9/13/07, Rating: 0
RE: Global??? I think not
By Terberculosis on 9/13/2007 12:43:52 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone knows the sun has nothing to do with global warming. It's over 90 million miles away... how on earth could it possibly affect the Earth's temperatures?

Now, all that oil we keep burning, that's right here, in our own back yards and driveways. If that isn't a likely cluprit, I don't know what is.
As proof, I submit to you that there are more power plants and fossil fuel buring infrastructure in the northern hemisphere, CLOSER to the Arctic ice cap!! And guess which ice cap is melting faster?

Problem solved? I think so.


RE: Global??? I think not
By sxr7171 on 9/13/2007 12:52:11 PM , Rating: 1
I won't say anything to you other than: go read about why we have seasons.

Maybe this too: Read about basic properties of gases on the level of what they would teach you in middle school.


RE: Global??? I think not
By theflux on 9/13/2007 12:55:06 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure he was joking.


RE: Global??? I think not
By Terberculosis on 9/13/2007 1:00:29 PM , Rating: 5
No, I am going to hold to my asinine position. I refuse to admit it was an obvious joke.


RE: Global??? I think not
By sxr7171 on 9/13/2007 1:04:37 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I should have known from the capitalized "CLOSER" and the exclamation points after "arctic cap" but I've been reading so much BS from these GW naysayers that it wouldn't surprise me if one of them actually wrote what you did and meant it!


RE: Global??? I think not
By Terberculosis on 9/13/2007 1:12:20 PM , Rating: 4
Indeed, it wouldn't be funny if it didn't reflect the ridiculous beliefs of much of the world.

Fact, a candle flame can burn you within seconds.
Fact, it takes hours of sun exposure (at most latitudes) to get a serious sunburn.

Therefore, a candle produces more heat than the sun, Q.E.D.


RE: Global??? I think not
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/13/2007 1:37:32 PM , Rating: 2
Yes unfortunately people conclude such things. When the reality is that the candle is just closer and provides a more focused heat.


RE: Global??? I think not
By Marlowe on 9/21/2007 9:04:20 AM , Rating: 2
O RLY?


RE: Global??? I think not
By sxr7171 on 9/13/2007 1:01:23 PM , Rating: 2
Oh. Sorry.


RE: Global??? I think not
By Spivonious on 9/13/2007 1:02:01 PM , Rating: 2
LOL!


RE: Global??? I think not
By TomZ on 9/13/2007 1:04:56 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Everyone knows the sun has nothing to do with global warming. It's over 90 million miles away... how on earth could it possibly affect the Earth's temperatures?

You're kidding, right? Actually solar activity is continually changing, and so at times more energy reaches the earth and at times less energy reaches the earth. It is by no means constant.

In fact, if you compare solar activity against global temperatures over the last century, you'll see they're strongly correlated. Much more so than to CO2 levels.


RE: Global??? I think not
By Terberculosis on 9/13/2007 1:16:59 PM , Rating: 5
There is also a strong correlation between the number of freckles on my right hand and global temperature. The number of freckles has increased dramatically over the past 30 years, as has the temperature.

I have brought this up to my doctor, requesting he either remove the skin on my hand and graft new skin on with no freckles, or remove the hand entirely. It is a small price to pay to halt global warming.


RE: Global??? I think not
By dluther on 9/13/2007 3:02:20 PM , Rating: 3
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228....

''The Sun varies on a cycle of about 11 years between periods of high and low activity.

But that cycle comes on top of longer-term trends; and most of the 20th Century saw a slight but steady increase in solar output.

However, in about 1985, that trend appears to have reversed, with solar output declining.

Yet this period has seen temperatures rise as fast as - if not faster than - any time during the previous 100 years.

"This paper reinforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science. ''


RE: Global??? I think not
By masher2 (blog) on 9/13/2007 3:25:58 PM , Rating: 3
Lockwood's paper was debunked by several authors almost before it was released. Here's one such analysis by astrophysicist Nir Shaviv, which details some of the basic errors made by Lockwood:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/07/nir-shaviv-why-i...

Here's a summary of one such error, which Shaviv puts in language easy enough for even laymen to understand:
quote:
There is a lag between the response and the forcing. Typically, one expects lags which depend on the time scale of the variations. The 11-year solar cycle gives rise to a 2-year lag in the 0.1°C observed temperature variations. Similarly, the response to the 20th century warming should be delayed by typically a decade. Climatologists know this very well (the IPCC report, for example, includes simulation results for the many decades long response to a "step function" in the forcing, and climatologists talk about "global warming commitment" that even if the CO2 would stabilize, or even decrease, we should expect to see the "committed warming", e.g., Science 307), but [Lockwood and Fröhlich] are not climatologists ...

This is not unlike a very well-known effect from everyday life. Even though the maximum radiation from the Sun is received near noon time, the maximum daily temperatures are obtained a few hours later in the afternoon. If we were to correlate the falling radiation between say noon and 3 pm (or between June 21 and July-August), to the increasing temperature over the same period, we would conclude that solar radiation causes cooling! This is exactly what [Lockwood and Fröhlich] are doing.


RE: Global??? I think not
By dluther on 9/13/2007 5:20:38 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, several authors "debunked" the Lockwood and Fröhlich paper. However, Lockwood and Fröhlich submitted their research to the stringent peer-review process, which none of the detractors have.

Lockwood writes in response to those who have "debunked" his work:

quote:
“I am one of the authors of the Royal Society global warming paper that you say is simple and fundamentally flawed (Comment, July 15). Simple? The idea was to present a straightforward demonstration, without recourse to complex climate models. Flawed? None of the three academic referees the paper was subjected to found any flaws.


Two things of note in this debate:

1) None of the Lockwood and Fröhlich detractors have formally published their findings or misgivings in any official journal, but rather have all offered their opinions in 'blogs' just like this one, for which there is no oversight or mediation.

2) Neither of the prestigious science journals in which the Lockwood and Fröhlich paper was published -- Nature and Proceedings of the Royal Society A -- have retracted nor clarified their publication.


RE: Global??? I think not
By masher2 (blog) on 9/13/07, Rating: 0
RE: Global??? I think not
By dluther on 9/13/2007 9:30:04 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The direct response to L&F has not been in any journal

Which by itself means next to nothing. Coupled with the fact that neither Nature nor the Royal Society has retracted or clarified their position on the L&F research, in my mind that says that a group of people that probably know more on the subject than you and I together haven't found any scientific basis to discount their research or position.

quote:
So to claim there's been no peer-reviewed refutation of Lockwood's position is wholly inaccurate.


But now you're trying to obfuscate the issue by using semantics, which is something I'd expect from someone who ... well, just isn't you [cough]TomZ[cough].

Another consideration is that Lockwood and Fröhlich did not take the position of refuting or disproving any specific research. They took widely available and verifiable data, analyzed it, and presented their findings to support their theory in a surprisingly terse and concise document.

That there is a wealth of data and findings to support both theories should come as no surprise to anyone. This is part of the scientific process.


RE: Global??? I think not
By TomZ on 9/13/2007 10:01:54 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
But now you're trying to obfuscate the issue by using semantics, which is something I'd expect from someone who ... well, just isn't you [cough]TomZ[cough].

Hello, hello - I'm here - I can hear that!

Sorry I can't speak as clearly as you guys - I'm trying to just get by with an IQ about half of what the rest of you have. I'm just happy when I can form letters into words and words into sentences. :o)


RE: Global??? I think not
By TomZ on 9/13/2007 10:03:04 PM , Rating: 1
Oh sorry, forgot something: [cough]asshole[/cough].


RE: Global??? I think not
By dluther on 9/13/2007 10:24:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh sorry, forgot something: [cough]asshole[/cough].

Well, it just wouldn't be a day without something witty from Tom...


RE: Global??? I think not
By TomZ on 9/13/2007 11:07:12 PM , Rating: 4
I am here only for your entertainment. I am therefore glad you are amused.


RE: Global??? I think not
By masher2 (blog) on 9/13/2007 10:42:47 PM , Rating: 2
> "neither Nature nor the Royal Society has retracted or clarified their position on the L&F research"

Eh? Academic journals don't have positions to clarify on the research published within them. And a "retraction" is never done, except in extreme circumstances such as intentional fraud or other academic misconduct.

The fact remains that a rather large body of work supports the solar flux-driven ion cloud interaction model, whereas only a single paper has attempted to refute it. Does that mean the theory is correct? No, of course not. But attempting to claim its proven incorrect on the basis of one brief, badly flawed paper is inexcusable.

Even more ironic is the fact that your own argument works more against than for you, as none of the many journals which have published research in support of a cosmic ray/climatic link have "discounted or retracted" those papers.

> "They took widely available and verifiable data"

Do you know what "widely available and verifiable data" they used? They didn't use the public, published data (the ACRIM TSI satellite dataset), but rather an obscure set called PMOD, which starts with the TSI readings, then adds many large, artificial corrections. What is the source of PMOD? Why, Fröhlich himself...and its important to note that the original providers of the ACRIM data say Fröhlich's adjustments are introducing a large degree of error. You can read about it here:

http://www.acrim.com/Senior%20Review%202007/SH43A-...

But that's simply the first of the problems. Second is that, rather than attempting a direct correlation, L&F compute a "running average" across interval of up to 13 years, span the interval with the moving average, then attempt to correlate. See the problem with that? It assumes the present state of the climate is partially due to the future state of the sun.

Thirdly, L&F fail entirely to account for the damping effect (delayed response) of the Earth to climate forcings. As detailed in the previous post, the earth's temperature increases after noon, even though solar radiation is decreasing. Why? Because the climate doesn't respond instantaneously to forcing. Similarly, when cosmic ray flux begins to rise (indicating more cloud formation), cooling does not begin instantaneously. There's a time shift in the correlation between the two series.

Fourth, L&F only examined only a twenty year period. Researchers Scafetta and West recently examined a much longer 400-year period of data, and concluded solar variability played a key role in climate forcings:

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2006GL027142...

This paper is in addition to the works cited above by Svensmark, Marsh, Shaviv, and others.

Seriously, why not pull up a few of these and judge for yourself? Or at the very least, read the L&F paper you're citing. It's honestly not that complex. I think if you give it a shot, you'll be surprised how accessible these works are, and what you find inside them.


RE: Global??? I think not
By dluther on 9/14/2007 9:31:55 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Fourth, L&F only examined only a twenty year period. Researchers Scafetta and West recently examined a much longer 400-year period of data

The problem I have with using a 400-year period of data is knowing which satellite, operating in the year 1605, was providing that data. It has only been for the past two solar cycles that scientists have been able to use satellites to accurately measure radiation levels. Ground-based measurements for the time previous are simply not as reliable due to the radiation absorption factors in the upper atmosphere (which ironically is also is a coefficient supporting anthropogenic global warming).

While sunspot activity does somewhat follow these changes in irradiance, and astronomers have been noting sunspot numbers for hundreds of years, the true number of sunspots and measurements of solar activity have only been available since 1954. Additionally, solar flux does not have a well-defined correlation to the number of sun spots, which means that any data prior to 1954 has to be extrapolated based upon predictive averages which may or may not have held true for 350 years:
quote:
Cycle 22 is not a good comparison due to the unusually short time it took to reach its maximum.
http://www.dxlc.com/solar/cyclcomp.html

Currently, solar cycle 23 is ending -- it started in May of 1996 and will end in March, 2008. The research you present indicated that we should be in a state of temperature decline, which we know is not true.

quote:
The fact remains that a rather large body of work supports the solar flux-driven ion cloud interaction model, whereas only a single paper has attempted to refute it.

Actually, most of the research in the field of cosmic ray/solar flux influence on cloud formation suggests a possible correlation, but the coefficients are weak, and the research clearly states that. Perhaps you're familiar with the work of Baller and Cerveny, who state:
quote:
Some scientists find strong correlation coefficients between cloud measurements and cosmic ray flux, while others find no relationship whatsoever; virtually all scientists working on this issue are hampered by the relatively short time period with accurate cloud and cosmic ray flux records . In an attempt to extend the period of record, we assembled surface and radiosonde data for the United States over the period 1957–1996 along with sunspot records which are known to be strongly, but inversely, related to cosmic ray flux. We also assembled cloud cover data and cosmic ray measurements over a reduced time period. We found that periods with low sunspot number (times with high cosmic ray flux) are associated with significantly higher dew point depressions, a higher diurnal temperature range, and less cloud cover. Our results do not support suggestions of increased cloud cover during periods of high cosmic ray flux.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/f4ktvdk5jfp03j...

There are many others, a fact of which I expect you are fully cognizant. We can go back and forth like this for a long time, and be exactly where we are now.

quote:
Seriously, why not pull up a few of these and judge for yourself?

I do. Furthermore, I think it is arrogant of you to not allow for the possibility that from time to time, there are people here at least as intelligent as you, who just as passionate about their position and ability to point to research supporting that position.

But let me bottom-line it for you. I believe that global warming is real, and that it is influenced, to a certain degree, by human interaction; a point of high debate. With all things being equal, if we do nothing and I'm wrong, the outcome is just fine, and I'm perfectly willing to accept that. However, if we do nothing and you're wrong, the outcome is quite dire. Are you willing to accept those consequences?


RE: Global??? I think not
By TomZ on 9/14/2007 9:56:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, if we do nothing and you're wrong, the outcome is quite dire. Are you willing to accept those consequences?

What are the consequences, in your view? It seems that global warming, whether natural or man-made, has both negative and positive attributes. In addition, these are very slow changes over many generations that allow people and societies plenty of time to adapt to the changes.

Think about what kind of human migrations can happen over that time period, for example the settling and development of the United States by immigrants over the past 200-300 years. That represents a huge change of where and how people live. In addition, with our current technology, transporation, capital, etc., I would argue that we can make such large-scale changes even faster going forward.

In my view, AGW is much ado about nothing. I'd be much more worried about a returning ice age.


RE: Global??? I think not
By masher2 (blog) on 9/14/2007 10:28:04 AM , Rating: 1
> "The problem I have with using a 400-year period of data is knowing which satellite, operating in the year 1605, was providing that data"

Now you're just being silly. The data was obtained by proxy, just as the paper you yourself cite didn't use cosmic ray data directly, but rather TSI (total solar irradiance) as a proxy for it. Did you never wonder how we knew the earth was colder or warmer millions of years ago, when we had no thermometers then, nor people to read them? Data is obtained via a proxy of some sort, an alternate reading that shows a high correlation to the event you're interested in. And, before you attack the proxy method as flawed, remember it applies doubly to the research you cite.

> "solar cycle 23 is ending. [The research] indicates that we should be in a state of temperature decline, which we know is not true"

We do? According the British Met office, the warmest year on record is 1998, and global temperates have been flat, or even descending slightly since then.

In any case, you're forgetting a number of things. Firstly, sunspots are an excellent but not perfect proxy for cosmic flux. Secondly, Cycle 23 will minimize next year...but the minimum temperature expected from that event is expected to lag 2-3 years, due to damping effects. Thirdly, the 11-year Maunder Cycle is only one of a number of cyclic patterns in solar activity. Fourthly, and most importantly, attempting to prove or disprove correlation over a single event (one cycle) is essentially statistically meaningless, as natural weather variability is quite large.

> "Perhaps you're familiar with the work of Baller and Cerveny, who state"

It's 'Balling', and I'm familiar with their work. But its easy to see why it no longer applies. The 1990s view was of a direct link between cosmic flux and all cloud cover. This turns out to be false. There is a slight negative correlation for high cloud cover (high in the atmosphere, where ionization levels are already high enough to promote cloud formation), and a much larger, positive correlation for low cloud cover. Increased cosmic flux reduces high cloud cover and increase low cloud cover.

Now here's the interesting bit. We already know that high clouds warm the earth through insolation, whereas low clouds cool via albedo modification.

Now its easy to see why B&C's research doesn't apply. They used total cloud cover as a correlative factor, which isn't valid. Solar activity doesn't affect overall cloud cover as much as it changes the balance of the types of clouds created-- in favor of high, warming clouds vs. low, cooling ones.


RE: Global??? I think not
By masher2 (blog) on 9/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: Global??? I think not
By dluther on 9/14/2007 11:55:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Data is obtained via a proxy of some sort, an alternate reading that shows a high correlation to the event you're interested in.

As you are so quick to point out when it supports your position, this extrapolated data is only an indirect estimation, based upon assumptions that may or may not be proven correct.

quote:
And, before you attack the proxy method as flawed, remember it applies doubly to the research you cite.

No, I would argue that it only applies equally.

quote:
According the British Met office, the warmest year on record is 1998, and global temperates have been flat, or even descending slightly since then.

That really depends on who you talk to. According to the British Met office, 2007 is forecast to be the warmest global year on record, with 2006 being the warmest in the UK, and 2006 being the warmest in the northern hemisphere. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/...
The NOAA says that 2006 was the warmest year on record: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2772.htm and NASA/GISS says that 2005 was the warmest year on record: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/...

As I stated before, we can go tit for tat with competing evidence to support our positions, and we'd both be right, leaving us exactly where we are now.

My position is that the current warming trend is undeniable, citing the very sources you provide:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/...

quote:
It's 'Balling', and I'm familiar with their work.

I will have to apologize to Dr. Balling -- I was on my way out the door, and... My bad.

But don't be so quick to discount their work. A more recent publication by B&C shows a more profound effect on weather due to pollution: http://www.contrails.nl/contrails-research/airpoll...

But you didn't answer the important question: Are you willing to accept the consequences of being wrong while advocating your position of doing nothing? It's an important question, one I think is deserving of an answer.


RE: Global??? I think not
By masher2 (blog) on 9/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: Global??? I think not
By dluther on 9/14/2007 2:17:14 PM , Rating: 2
> > "you didn't answer the important question: Are you willing to accept the consequences of being wrong while advocating your position of doing nothing?"

> Of course.

Well, I guess that's where our ideologies will take divergent paths.

> GW heats cold regions far more than it does warm ones.

Absolutely. Think back to August 2003 when 35,000 Europeans died during a record-setting heat wave. This is on top of the 50,000 people who would die during colder months, in a region already prepared to deal with extreme cold. It sounds suspiciously to me that your scenario just moves the deaths around the calendar. Heatstroke and hypothermia are entirely different kinds of dying; you may want to investigate that a bit further.

> With modern technology, a Class 5 hurricane today is less dangerous than a Class 1 was 100 years ago.

I'm sure that all of the people in Louisiana and Alabama will be relieved to hear that piece of news.

> we're squandering trillions of a problem which very well may not exist and, even if it does, will be far less costly than the "cure".

Right. And squandering trillions of dollars fighting the phantom terrorists in Iraq is a far better idea. I'm not just throwing that out there to be facetious, but am trying to make the point that perhaps environmental issues could be addressed in lieu of other less controversial and ultimately more beneficial ones.

> Anyone who considers that a wise move hasn't thought it through.

And yet your basic premise is that mankind can continue to pollute the air, rivers, streams, and oceans at current and increasingly higher levels, with either negligible, or an ultimately beneficial effect.

Good luck selling that one. I don't think I'm the one who hasn't thought things through.


RE: Global??? I think not
By ChronoReverse on 9/14/2007 2:46:58 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, talk about using tangential retorts.


RE: Global??? I think not
By mars777 on 9/15/2007 12:33:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of course. Because the "consequence" -- even if the alarmists are correct -- are not nearly as high as the costs of crippling the global economy to block CO2 emissions. Kyoto alone is estimated to cost over a trillion dollars, and its total impact is in the neighborhood of 0.07 degrees. That's assuming AGW is correct, of course, otherwise its net effect is zero. How many lives can we save worldwide with a trillion dollars, if we spent it on something useful?


If we all start reasoning like that we will achieve 2 things:

- selfdeception after a few generations. people shall start believing that this is actually good and right. nature is done to be crippled. and they will cripple it without thinking twice anymore, not even calculating consequences anymore, because crippling is something good. (this is a proven pshicological fact, people tend to believe what other believe if nobody counters, and they are prone to not counter what everybody believes. even by selfdeception)

- butterfly effect: a few degrees shall make storms of insects go in another direction, birds shall go to the location where insects are often and not anymore, birds shall die, more insects of other type will grow there.,,, after a few strange situations we shall have 50 kinds of dead animal species and flora species (and somebody will say woops, they are dead. and correlate that to something like global warming and say well there is a correlation. than another guy will say but there is a correlation to periodical farts of some guy in taiwan... Does it really matter if there is a correlation or not to something? What is IMPORTANT is: NATURE IS AN ECOSYSTEM, NOT A GARBAGE COLLECTOR AS THE HUMAN KIND IS USING IT RIGHT NOW - IT'S OUR HOUSE. DO YOU SPILL RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS, BURN OIL, SPIT ON THE GROUND IN YOUR HOME? NO YOU USE GARBAGE CANS APPROPRIATELY. EVEN IF THAT COSTS YOU PAYING THE BILL. WELL COMPANIES ARE MADE OF MANY INDIVIDUALS AND THE SHOULD THREAT NATURE AS THEIR HOME, LIKE WE THREAT OUT HOME AT HOME - NO MATTER THE COST - EVEN THE COST OF GOING OUT OF BUSINESS).

If there is a specific application of the butterfly effect than it's nature itself. it's so complex that something will happen, and we shall never be able to calculate that, not even with quantum computers, because data itself is of astronomical sizes in just days ... think of decades or centuries. we can only hope the results of our alteration arent catastrophic, and we know that when we see clearly a mistake, going back is a path way longer than to come to that point (unless we invent new technologies wich i dont know of today).


RE: Global??? I think not
By TomZ on 9/15/2007 1:27:01 PM , Rating: 2
To a certain extent, I agree with you, though I might suggest we can look at this another way.

The main problem with AGW, if it turns out to be a false concern, is that because of the loud alarm bells politicans and the media have rung, that if there is some kind of "real" environmental threat in the future, people may tend to turn it out. Because of this, it is important that people keep the magnitude of the warnings about AGW proportional to the real threat.

Many people criticize the Bush Administration's pre-emptive war doctrine. But what you have today with AGW is the same strategy applied to environmentalism. In other words, let's pre-emptively and pro-actively try to solve the problem, even though we're not quite sure it exists. It's easy to see how this can go awry.

Many environmentalists also believe that you have to exaggerate the message greatly in order to get any response. I believe that this strategy will back-fire in the longer term and cause the general public to generally tune out the "green noise."

Prior to the AGW scare, we were in a pretty good position in terms of a reasonable effort being applied to the problem of pollution, at least in developed nations. I don't see any of that good work being rolled back, and I disagree with your assumption that people are polluting like crazy. But I think that is also largely a function of where you are looking, since most developed nations have pollution in check while some developing nations are still farther back on the learning curve.


RE: Global??? I think not
By rogard on 9/13/07, Rating: 0
RE: Global??? I think not
By Terberculosis on 9/13/07, Rating: 0
RE: Global??? I think not
By rogard on 9/13/2007 1:23:15 PM , Rating: 2
Well sir,

I strongly suggest you get yourself some basic knowledge about the sun, fast. (Although it is kind of amusing to read your comments)

All the radioactive material on earth, even detonated as nuclear bombs would be insignificant in comparison to the energy the sun generates. We might be able to kill all life on earth this way, but we won't be able to sustain life without the sun (for long)


RE: Global??? I think not
By Terberculosis on 9/13/2007 1:37:36 PM , Rating: 2
While your point is correct, the amount of nuclear fissile matierial we have access to is small... That material only represents a small fraction of the fissile material found in the earth's crust. The earth's crust then only represents a small fraction of a percent of the earth's total volume. I maintain that the ammount of fissile material to be found within the earth is more than sufficient to maintain a molten core and deep sea vents. Life will go on.

I would also like to point out that we have no direct evidence to believe that life is not possible in extremly low temperatures. The type of metabolism we are familair with on earth, of course, could not sustain itself at extremly low temps, but that is no reason to believe there is no exotic form of metabolism which can survive without extremly high temperatures. Methane Ice worms anyone?


RE: Global??? I think not
By rogard on 9/13/2007 2:45:42 PM , Rating: 2
Well at least I am pretty sure a missing sun would rid us of all stupid people. :-)
Unfortunately, the more intelligent ones would go as well :-(


RE: Global??? I think not
By timmiser on 9/13/2007 7:40:54 PM , Rating: 2
Don't be so hard on yourself!


RE: Global??? I think not
By djkrypplephite on 9/14/2007 2:00:14 PM , Rating: 2
You can't be serious.


RE: Global??? I think not
By Shadowmaster625 on 9/13/2007 2:46:05 PM , Rating: 2
humans could easily alter the earths climate. Did you know that the total paved land surface roughly equals an area the size of georgia??! Now imagine if you were standing in the middle of a black asphalt parking lot the size of georgia. Do you have any idea how hot it would be? It would alter the climate for thousands of miles around it.

Also, when man does silly things like tear down the rainforests to make room for cattle and walmarts, that also has an impact on the climate system for thousands of miles. Trees are a natural shield against erosion, and when we get rid of them it can cause entire swaths of land to become barren. When huge sections of land go from green to brown, the planet loses its ability to regulate temperature leading to greater climate extremes. Hotter summer cooler winters, etc. Caused by man.


RE: Global??? I think not
By Terberculosis on 9/13/2007 2:54:00 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
"When huge sections of land go from green to brown, the planet loses its ability to regulate temperature leading to greater climate extremes. Hotter summer cooler winters, etc. Caused by man."


Several things:
1. The planet does not lose its ability to regulate its temperature, the range of temperatures simply changes. Energy still comes in and goes out, just like before, the mechanics just change a bit.

2. Those rain forests haven't been here forever. They changed the temperature ballance first. The earth was originally baren rock (probably). We are returning it to its natural state. We have to rid ourselves of these damnable trees, they're destroying the temperature ballance of the planet!

3. I should have said a couple of things, rather than several, as I am out of ideas.


RE: Global??? I think not
By Ringold on 9/13/2007 3:03:35 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
When huge sections of land go from green to brown, the planet loses its ability to regulate temperature leading to greater climate extremes. Hotter summer cooler winters, etc. Caused by man.


Doesn't seem to be a problem for this place.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Coruscant


RE: Global??? I think not
By rogard on 9/13/2007 3:13:41 PM , Rating: 2
I did not mean that humans cannot change climate at all. I said that the sun has much more influence on the climate than all mankind together.

And other natural factors change the face and climate of Earth constantly, and they did so for more than 4 billion years. Sahara was once a lush country, the "food chamber" of Africa. Vanished. The Ice age - no human influence whatsoever. Volcanoes, tectonic movement, you name it. All of that happened in the past and will continue to happen. Compare that to what humans did so far.

Still, mankind's behavior will have consequences (and most of them are bad). Whatever the scale is, we should be thinking about what we're doing here.
Right now, scientific research results should be taken with a grain of salt. 30 years ago, many scientist claimed to have found out that there was a global cooling coming. Nobody seems to remember that anymore. Who knows what people will say about global warming in 30 years?


RE: Global??? I think not
By Terberculosis on 9/13/2007 3:17:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Still, mankind's behavior will have consequences (and most of them are bad).


Define bad. I believe the rat and cockroach population finds most of our behavior to be fantastic.

Bad is a very bad term to use in a logical discussion.


RE: Global??? I think not
By rogard on 9/13/2007 3:33:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

Define bad. I believe the rat and cockroach population finds most of our behavior to be fantastic.


Phew, you almost provoked me into writing a definition.
Suffice it to say: "bad" as in "getting-worse-to-live-in-for humans - bad".


RE: Global??? I think not
By Terberculosis on 9/13/2007 3:44:10 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see how ridding ourselves of useless (to humans) frozen wastelands can make it harder for us to get along. The loss of the arctic ice cap will create better trade routes, and give us access to fossil fuels which were previously inaccessable.

You could argue that pollution from burning fossil fuels is making it harder for us to live, but at the same time it is driving technological advancement at an unprescidented pace. This creates a net "good" effect. No reason to think that we won't be able to repair the dammages at a later date.

It is very important we reach a high technology level as fast as possible, the longer we remain a fossil fuel buring civilization, the greater the chance that we will still be dependant upon them when they run out. We must use them quickly to reach a higer level, so that we may survive in their absense and damn the short term consequences.


RE: Global??? I think not
By rogard on 9/13/2007 3:55:14 PM , Rating: 2
I just decided that it was my mistake to take what you say seriously. Therefore, it seems best to save energy by ending this conversation before I ridicule myself. My contribution to make this world a better place ;-)


RE: Global??? I think not
By Terberculosis on 9/13/2007 3:58:36 PM , Rating: 2
Don't feel too bad (bad as in a drop in seratonin levels in your brain, combined with feelings of self disapointment).
My wife hasn't been able to come to that conclusion even after years of ample evidence.


RE: Global??? I think not
By acer905 on 9/13/2007 4:25:38 PM , Rating: 2
I was going to actually respond to you in detail about the inaccuracies of what you said, but i realize now its not worth the effort.

Instead i will simply say this, go walk thousands of miles before you try to say something like that again.


RE: Global??? I think not
By Procurion on 9/13/2007 5:59:39 PM , Rating: 2
Just throwing my two cents, lol...trees are not the primary preventer of erosion. Grasses and other low-growing small plants with tightly interwoven roots are. Trees can actually promote erosion. They are, however, beautiful stacks of trapped carbon and continue to process the various "greenhouse" gases faster than grasses do.

A bigger tragedy that you point out is when these "stacks" of stored carbon are burned to clear land. Not only do you lose an air-purifying engine, but the majority of the good filtering it's done is ruined when it releases all that carbon back into the atmosphere-in effect, a double-whammy.

You can burn off the vegetation in a ten square mile area and the following year it will be covered with a carpet of grass if the rainfall in the area is sufficient. It will take ten years for any significant sized trees to regrow and resume their effective processing......


RE: Global??? I think not
By rogard on 9/13/2007 3:02:13 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry in the posting above I forgot to put the first paragraph in quotes.

I knew I would get downrated on my comment....but somebody please, go ahead and prove me wrong. I have taken quite an interest in earth's climate, global warming, acid rain, pollution, alternative energy and so on for more than 20 years now. Although I am not a nature scientist, I would not consider myself uninformed. I say, as a matter of fact there are still many more unanswered questions than solid scientific facts. The whole climate business is more and more becoming a freak show. It is obviously not about scientific insight anymore, it's about funding and publicity and the interests of various parties.

btw: where can I find out how the rating system works?


RE: Global??? I think not
By Terberculosis on 9/13/2007 3:07:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
btw: where can I find out how the rating system works?

FAQ at the bottom of the page.


RE: Global??? I think not
By crash resistant on 9/13/2007 10:10:09 PM , Rating: 2
By far, the most mis-informed commenter/person I have read in over a week.

Read my fellow human, read. At least try.


RE: Global??? I think not
By dluther on 9/13/2007 10:27:14 PM , Rating: 2
Repeat after me: "Sarcasm, thy name is Terberculosis"


RE: Global??? I think not
By sxr7171 on 9/13/2007 12:47:17 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, that's what a lot of us who look beyond the hype think. There are changes governed by so many factors that we do not understand leave alone have any control over. The sun is a major factor with it's cycles. Also the reason we have seasons is because of the inclination of the earth's axis relative to the sun and those are major seasonal changes. Even the slightest wobble of the earth on that axis will produce notice changes in different regions in cycles that span decades. I'll bet that there are multiple wobbles and "vibrations" that put our climate on various different cycles perhaps acting over 30 years, and another over 100 years, another over 200, and so forth. We don't have enough data today to talk about anything that is greater than maybe 50-100 years in terms of cycles. So we talking about what is happening right now - a mild warming in the Northern Hemisphere, that will reverse soon enough allowing the Southern Hemisphere to warm up a bit for a few decades.


RE: Global??? I think not
By theflux on 9/13/2007 12:54:39 PM , Rating: 2
You're wrong. Global Warming researchers have it all figured out, and they'll tell you all about it if you keep the funding levels high. :D


Missing some details?
By ksuWildcat on 9/13/2007 12:52:07 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The warming Arctic is expected to eventually open up gas and oil resources in the region, as well as a new sea trade route, saving up to 8,000 miles on cargo shipping between Asia and the rest of the world.


Not to mention wiping out the polar bears. Mr. Asher seems to focus almost solely on the alleged benefits of rising water/surface temperatures while largely neglecting any negative consequences of global warming. There are three things that are certain no matter which side of this debate you are on.

1. The planet's mean surface temperature is rising (and at a rate much faster than any time in the last 500,000 years), regardless of very small, obscure studies showing increasing ice mass in the southern hemisphere and fewer global droughts.

2. Global warming may have some positive outcomes, but it will destroy the habitats of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of species.

3. Humans are having an impact on the environment and are also, at least in part, accelerating global warming.

Ignoring these notions will have profound effects on this planet, as well as humans and other species alike.




RE: Missing some details?
By sxr7171 on 9/13/2007 12:54:35 PM , Rating: 2
"at a rate much faster than any time in the last 500,000 years"

If you could link or point out where you read that, I would love to read that article.


RE: Missing some details?
By Terberculosis on 9/13/2007 1:07:45 PM , Rating: 2
I am pretty sure Wikipedia says that somewhere. If not, I'll be sure to add it in.


RE: Missing some details?
By onelittleindian on 9/13/2007 1:12:56 PM , Rating: 2
Lol! If you ever hold a comedy show in my area, be sure to let me know.


RE: Missing some details?
By Shadowmaster625 on 9/13/2007 2:51:11 PM , Rating: 2
Dont hold your breath on that source, i dont think there is one! Its based on ice core data primarily. But ice core data does not have the resolution to see down to the annual level. For all we know there have been many such periods of rapid climate change. We just cant see it in the ice core data.


RE: Missing some details?
By James Holden on 9/13/2007 12:57:12 PM , Rating: 2
How many species on this planet have you personally aided in wiping out?

Polars bears, yes a tragedy. I think you'll be a little surprised when you look closer to home.


RE: Missing some details?
By Terberculosis on 9/13/2007 12:58:20 PM , Rating: 2
Global warming may destroy the habitat of certian overly specialized species. So what?

What does it matter if these species die off? It will not be the first mass die off of species. It probably will not even be a very large die off. Let them go. If some ecological niches are destroyed, others will show up. Species will evolve to exploit these gaps.

Who are we to assume we know what is best for the biospehre?
It did fine without us for BILLIONS of years. Some things die, others don't. It's a freakin' miracle.

Sit back and enjoy the show.


RE: Missing some details?
By porkpie on 9/13/2007 12:59:21 PM , Rating: 3
Polar bears are a very recent animal. They only appeared about 200K years. And since they can still fertilely interbreed with brown bears, they really should be just considered a subspecies. They're certainly genetically closer to a brown bear than a Great Dane is to a poodle.

By the way, Polar Bear populations are increasing in most parts Canada. The Canadian government has been granting hunting permits to thin out their population.


RE: Missing some details?
By Keeir on 9/13/2007 7:09:43 PM , Rating: 2
To furnish your point with some data

http://www.nunatsiaq.com/news/nunavut/70914_498.ht...

I have also heard that polar bear populations today are significantly higher than in past times of study (of polar bears). Potentially, one of the reasons for recent change in population levels and health may have to do with the ecological niche being filled rather than a reduction of sea-ice habitat. The overall USGS study may be correct, but it seems to me to make the flaw of assuming Sea-Ice is the only suitable habitat for Polar Bears.


RE: Missing some details?
By Keeir on 9/13/2007 7:33:41 PM , Rating: 2
I think its especially telling that no major news outlet I have surveryed included a section (Mention, reference, interview, etc) on this outspoken polar bear specialist.

And when I do find it, it often contains smearing tactics ie

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne...

It is a good note that the "Prof Derocher" mentioned is probably

http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/faculty/andrew_dero...

A good expert to use because his speciality is Polar Bear Conservation. But.... I wonder if he has any benifit for more Polar Bear conservation money.


RE: Missing some details?
By Bioniccrackmonk on 9/13/07, Rating: -1
RE: Missing some details?
By acer905 on 9/13/2007 1:04:50 PM , Rating: 2
Man it had to suck to be a Wolly Mammoth a couple thousand years ago when the earth was experiencing large scale global warming (IE coming out of an ice age)

I'm not gonna argue whether or not humans are causing any global warming. But i will say this. Survival of the fittest.


RE: Missing some details?
By Shadowmaster625 on 9/13/2007 2:47:48 PM , Rating: 1
you mean survival of the most brutal...


RE: Missing some details?
By Terberculosis on 9/13/2007 3:11:54 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
you mean survival of the most brutal...

Nope, I am pretty sure he means fittest. Fitness being defined as producing offspring which survive to produce their own offspring.

Suicide bombers tend to be rather brutal, alas, they tend to be young unmarried men who have produced no offspring. Hence they lack in fitness. (poor taste in my choice of example, I know, but true none the less.)


RE: Missing some details?
By acer905 on 9/13/2007 4:20:44 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Every animal on earth (Yes, that includes humans for those who have a "holier than thou" attitude never actually associate humans with animals) will do whatever it can to ensure its survival, and in a lot of cases the survival of its offspring. It might simply be pre-programed instinct, but its there. And the ones who are the most fit. the most able to adapt, will survive while others fall behind. IT happens. It has for billions of years, and will continue to long after we are gone.

Always remember, we are a speck on the surface of the earth, which is a dot in comparison to our sun, which itself is a tiny pin prick in comparison to our galaxy, which is but one of countless others. Feel small yet?


RE: Missing some details?
By Ringold on 9/13/2007 2:55:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ignoring these notions will have profound effects on this planet, as well as humans and other species alike.


Thankfully, economists are harder to "buy" for various reasons than it is to fudge a bunch of random variables in a climate simulation program to produce desired outcomes. Virtually everything I've read says your assertion about human costs under all IPCC scenario's is completely false; even a worst-case climate outcome would exact a minimal cost on Earth's economies if nothing is done/can be done to stop climate change. The only force that can stop us from becoming fantastically wealthy over the next few centuries is man itself; specifically, socialism.

That reduces the environmental argument you try to make as one really about how much we give a damn about polar bears and how much we're willing to part with, both in cash and future potential growth such as raising the hundreds of millions around the world living on less than $1 a day to a global middle class as China and India is doing and the 'Tigers' have done.

To some, I suppose polar bears > humanity. For my part, I wonder how polar bear would taste on a sandwich.


RE: Missing some details?
By johnsonx on 9/13/2007 6:40:37 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Ignoring these notions will have profound effects on this planet, as well as humans and other species alike.

There's mounting evidence against such notions (or a mounting lack of evidence for such notions). Such notions probably should be ignored, as they are starting to sound silly.

1. There just isn't any evidence to support your point 1.

2. A changing climate is normal for this planet. Species have survived for millions of years through all manner of climate changes. Most adapt. Some die. Too bad.

3. 'Impact' on the environment isn't bad by definition, and there's again no evidence to support the notion that humans are causing any temperature changes.


HIGHEST SINCE RECORD KEEPING BEGAN!!!
By eyebeeemmpawn on 9/13/2007 12:54:36 PM , Rating: 2
The chart you have posted shows data from the past 30 years, is that how long they've been collecting the data? If that is the case, I would argue that 30 years is too short of a sample size to conclude anything relating to human impact.

You BOLDLY declare "Highest amount seen since record-keeping began" , then fail to mention that its only from the last 30 years. Seems like spin to support your "global warming is a myth" agenda.

On the other side of the coin, I do believe that the media has created a frenzy around Global Warming. I respect your efforts to counteract the alarmist, attention grabbing headlines that blanket the media.

The only truth I can draw from any of this is: Any study can conclude just about anything given the right sample size and the right organization funding the study.




RE: HIGHEST SINCE RECORD KEEPING BEGAN!!!
By sxr7171 on 9/13/2007 1:00:02 PM , Rating: 2
Buddy, if there is indeed "Global" warming - meaning that temperatures on this entire planet are increasing there should be no increase in ice anywhere. So if there is ice increasing anywhere even over the past 5 years, how can you say there is "Global" warming? There may be changes in which regions are getting warmer and which are getting cooler but that's not "global" warming.


By Ratwar on 9/13/2007 3:11:19 PM , Rating: 2
You're assuming that the amount of ice was in equilibrium before Global Warming began. If the rate of snowfall in Antarctica was greater than the amount lost to glacier movements before global warming began, it is entirely possible that the amount of ice would continue to increase. Of course, this does not apply to Sea Ice, which is in equilibrium since most of it melts every year. That's what makes the article so interesting.


By eyebeeemmpawn on 9/13/2007 4:32:13 PM , Rating: 2
Buddy, where in my post did I say "global warming" exists???

might want to work on that pesky reading comprehension :)


RE: HIGHEST SINCE RECORD KEEPING BEGAN!!!
By porkpie on 9/13/2007 1:03:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would argue that 30 years is too short of a sample size to conclude anything relating to human impact
Funny, when global warming records aren't much longer than that. We have reliable records for the US for only 100 years, and half the world for only 50-60 years.

Your comment is even funnier when one realizes that back in 2003, environmentalists were telling us the THREE year decline in Antarctic Ice was solid proof of global warming.


By eyebeeemmpawn on 9/13/2007 4:55:06 PM , Rating: 1
What really funny is...what is your point??? I didn't say anything to support or refute "global warming". All I was pointing out was the presentation of the information in this article is misleading, and that any data can be manipulated to support whichever side you choose.

"Highest amount seen since record-keeping began" is a more powerful statement than "Highest amount seen in 30 years of data". Try paying closer attention.


RE: HIGHEST SINCE RECORD KEEPING BEGAN!!!
By Bioniccrackmonk on 9/13/2007 1:06:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only truth I can draw from any of this is: Any study can conclude just about anything given the right sample size and the right organization funding the study.


Very true, but the same can be said for all the people filling the media with the global warming propaganda. That sword you are swinging is razor sharp on both sides, do be careful.


By eyebeeemmpawn on 9/13/2007 5:03:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Very true, but the same can be said for all the people filling the media with the global warming propaganda. That sword you are swinging is razor sharp on both sides, do be careful.


Huh, rereading my post...

quote:
I do believe that the media has created a frenzy around Global Warming. I respect your efforts to counteract the alarmist, attention grabbing headlines that blanket the media.


Wait, maybe that was exactly my point...oh, there's more...

quote:
The only truth I can draw from any of this is: Any study can conclude just about anything given the right sample size and the right organization funding the study.


huh, sounds like we're on the same page...its just that you see the words on the page, but they don't seem to make it to your brain :)


RE: HIGHEST SINCE RECORD KEEPING BEGAN!!!
By rogard on 9/13/2007 1:16:42 PM , Rating: 1
I second that.

I cannot provide a link, but I've seen many graphs that show a COOLING between 1940 and 1970. As with all statistical data, you can use it to "prove" your point, whatever it is.
AFAIK record keeping started in mid 19th century. But data is flawed because methods changed, for many places on earth there are still no sensors installed, the majority of sensors are inside cities which could distort the reading further....
All in all, even with 2 centuries worth of data, there is not ONE conclusion everybody can agree on.


RE: HIGHEST SINCE RECORD KEEPING BEGAN!!!
By Terberculosis on 9/13/2007 1:42:22 PM , Rating: 4
I believe it was Mark Twain (Samuel Clemmens (sp?) to those of you who abhor pseudonyms) who said :
"Figures don't lie, but liars figure"

Also: "If I hadn't believed it, I wouldn't have seen it"
- Some Physical Anthropologist whos name I cannot recall


By eyebeeemmpawn on 9/13/2007 5:09:30 PM , Rating: 2
Thankfully, there is intelligent life on earth! I'm glad you two grasped the concept here. Great quotes BTW.


RE: HIGHEST SINCE RECORD KEEPING BEGAN!!!
By aeroengineer1 on 9/13/2007 1:37:42 PM , Rating: 2
This is about as dumb as the guy that tried to assert that we knew what the climate changes were down to a few degrees op to 500,000 years ago, when it was only recent that the idea of plate tectonics was accepted by the general scientific population. As others have stated, you will recognize that 30 years of data on the antartic ice is too little, but because we have a little over a humans life time worth of data we can characterize a constantly changing world. That statement is akin to saying because we understand everything in our solar system (which we really do not) we now know everything about the rest of the Milky Way. Are there areas that have great pollutions, yes there are, are they unsightly, yes, but interestingly many of these places do not reside in the United States. I do not advocate that we do not seek to improve the efficiency of all good and productive things in society, but we need to do it for some other reason than a scare tactic. I would much rather see someone push advances in efficiencies based uppon the fact that we can, then we really really should because you are killing yourself and my really ridiculous idea that would not be possible unless you gave me lots of money to research it, and then it still won't be as good as other alternatives.

I personally would like to see a report of the energy wasted in researching hydrogen cars and pure electric cars and then equate that into their precious equiv of CO2 production.


By Terberculosis on 9/13/2007 1:46:52 PM , Rating: 3
Thanks to extensive research into deep sea cores over the past two decades, we actually have pretty accurate temperature data for the worlds oceans going back about 6 million years, and spotty records reaching back even farther.


By eyebeeemmpawn on 9/13/2007 5:38:34 PM , Rating: 2
Were you trying to reply to my post?

My post:
quote:
I would argue that 30 years is too short of a sample size to conclude anything relating to human impact.


Your post:
quote:
As others have stated, you will recognize that 30 years of data on the antartic ice is too little, but because we have a little over a humans life time worth of data we can characterize a constantly changing world.


You seem confused, but you make good points. I agree with you views on improving efficiency and the motivations with which we work toward that goal. My only criticism, was of the wording of the article, you may want to actually read my post.

I'm still waiting for masher2 to clarify the data.

I like to think of it this way:
WMD's are to George W. Bush, as Global Warming is to Environmentalists.

Also, since you mentioned pollution. I'm sure there are many horribly polluted areas in the world. You might want to check out the state of our own back yard. I hope you're not trying to justify our pollution with the fact that there are polluted areas outside of the US. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard, IMO.

http://www.scorecard.org/env-releases/land/ (not the greatest, but there is a map...I think New Jersey is in there somewhere)
This one is better:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/index.htm


By AlexWade on 9/14/2007 9:10:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only truth I can draw from any of this is: Any study can conclude just about anything given the right sample size and the right organization funding the study.


You are exactly right. Some GW eco-nazi group said hurricanes are getting more intense and more frequent, but they left the key fact that we only have accurate hurricane forecasts since the 1970's when weather satellites went up. You are right, more study is needed.

I think the point Michael Asher is trying to make is that if the whole earth is supposedly getting warmer because of humans, then why do we have a colder southern hemisphere? South Africa had over 50 days of below normal temperatures and the first snow in decades this year. Although the article doesn't mention it, I found a study by an Indian scientist that shows that the Antarctic sea ice growth is accelerating. How can this be if the whole earth is getting warmer?
http://64.119.172.31/awpf.pdf

As you said, more study is needed, but the eco-nazis don't want more study. They want you to just believe. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, facts are a global warming advocate's worst nightmare. And Michael is just showing that truth. Eco-nazis know that more study will mean they will be exposed as liars and their cause is a money pit. And when the earth begins to cool, they will create another eco-crisis so their money won't dry up.

It is all about money. No crisis, no money.


Look hard enough and you'll find what you need
By Griswold on 9/13/2007 12:58:18 PM , Rating: 2
Looks like your plus on sea ice has been countered by a decline of the antarctic ice sheet:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311...

Register for free to get access to the full article.




By masher2 (blog) on 9/13/2007 1:09:06 PM , Rating: 4
That paper surveyed only the period 2002-2005. The later research on ice mass balance (linked in par.2, above) covered a much longer 11-year period, and found ice sheet mass growth of 27±29Gt per year.


RE: Look hard enough and you'll find what you need
By Griswold on 9/18/2007 7:39:39 AM , Rating: 2
Provide me with figures that have a smaller margin of error if you want to impress me or anyone besides your groupies.

I'm glad Jason Mick found the time to shed a proper light on your wild theories.

http://www.dailytech.com/Studies+Indicate+Melting+...


By Pythias on 9/18/2007 12:33:00 PM , Rating: 2
What light did he shed exactly?


Lol
By onelittleindian on 9/13/2007 12:54:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The warming Arctic is expected to eventually open up gas and oil resources in the region
I bet the environmentalists are going to have a heart attack over that!




RE: Lol
By jskirwin on 9/13/2007 4:02:07 PM , Rating: 1
Well if they do they'd better not be the first to have one on a still night in a place that relies upon wind/solar for power. Nothing to recharge the defib.


RE: Lol
By Ringold on 9/13/2007 11:24:28 PM , Rating: 2
Best they not throw a fit in Russia. If they did then have a heart attack there wouldn't be anything to recharge the defib in a still, cold night in Siberia, either.

Assuming a rogue KGB man doesn't spike their kool-aid with polonium, of course, and save on the cost of transporting them to Siberia.


Wait for it...
By theflux on 9/13/2007 12:49:44 PM , Rating: 2
Am I the only one expecting the companion piece "Researchers Agree: Antarctic Ice Levels Hit Record Low"?




RE: Wait for it...
By sxr7171 on 9/13/2007 1:07:46 PM , Rating: 2
Ha Ha! The best part of it is the inclusion of the word "agree" in that title!


Aha!
By Polynikes on 9/15/2007 2:49:08 PM , Rating: 2
This is why I'm not taking sides in this debate. There's this article, then there's this one:
http://www.dailytech.com/Studies+Indicate+Melting+...

Who should I believe? The ice is melting! No, actually there's more than ever! I know it can't be both at the same time, so I'm going to ignore all climate related articles from now on. I don't care if the world is warming, for all I know it's completely natural. When the scientists find a consensus, maybe then I'll listen.




RE: Aha!
By Pythias on 9/15/2007 3:13:58 PM , Rating: 2
I think this is exactly the point. Some people would have us believe there is nothing to debate. Its not as cut and dried as some folks want it to be.


27%?
By smitty3268 on 9/14/2007 12:53:35 AM , Rating: 2
It's interesting to note that ice is increasing in Antarctica, but I thought the truly shocking info there was that ice at the north pole had decreased 27% in only 2 years. At this rate, it will be completely gone in a few more. I was under the impression that this was happening much more slowly...




Obviously global warming
By djkrypplephite on 9/14/2007 1:41:30 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure if you guys have seen some of the dumbass environmentalist remarks that indicate that ANY change in the weather is caused by global warming. Obviously this is heat snow we're seeing here. See, when the earth heats up too much, it forms a layer of ice on the polar caps, and that's why. It's global warming, of course.




“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls














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